Tag: Religion

2022 RLLR 22

Citation: 2022 RLLR 22
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 24, 2022
Panel: Alannah Hatch
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Birjinder P.S. Mangat
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: VC2-01083
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Pakistan, who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to subsections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DETERMINATION

[2] For the reasons that follow, I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a serious possibility of persecution on account of a Convention ground, namely religion.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] Briefly, you fear that you will be killed by your Sunni relatives and former Sunni colleagues, members of the XXXX and for the record, that is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Pakistan, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, generally, and two (2) XXXX leaders, specifically, named XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. You also fear members of other anti-Shia extremist groups such as the XXXX, (inaudible), and the XXXX, as well as the political party, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and you fear them because you have converted to the Shia faith, because you XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and because you were actively supporting fellow Shia Muslims in Pakistan as a member of both the XXXX, which is a Shia Muslims religious and political party, and also a lawyers forum that provided legal assistant to Shia Muslims and other minorities.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] I find that your personal identity – an identity as a national of Pakistan is established by the documents provided, including a certified copy of your Pakistan passport.

Nexus

[5] For a claimant to be a Convention refugee, the claimant must have a well-founded fear of persecution due to a Convention ground and I find that the harm you fear is by reason of the Convention ground of religion due to your conversion to the Shia faith.

Credibility

[6] When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their untrue — or to doubt their truthfulness and I found you to be a credible witness. You testified in a straightforward manner, and you answered my questions, giving detailed answers without hesitation. There were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me. I accept on a balance of probabilities that you converted to the Shia faith. You provided a lengthy Basis of Claim form, a narrative in Exhibit 6 detailing why you chose to convert and how you converted. In addition, you provided documentary evidence showing that you continue to follow your faith in Canada. You have also provided other documentary evidence to support your allegations, including letters from your mother and friend, letters regarding your membership in the XXXX and the lawyers forum in Pakistan, a copy of the fatwa issued against you by the SSP, a medical report showing the injuries that you sustained after you were attacked, the letter that you wrote to the police requesting that an FIR be registered, and a land registry document showing the land and the graveyard that you donated. In summary, you have provided extensive evidence of the threats and the attacks made against you.

[7] You have also provided several photographs of yourself participating in protests in Calgary and copies of six (6) different newspapers from Pakistan, which reported the protest, and which contain your photograph and name. Upon a review of these items, I find no reason to doubt their authenticity and therefore, place significant weight on them as they serve to corroborate your allegations. I find that you have established on a balance of probabilities that you converted to the Shia faith in XXXX 2018. You joined the XXXX, a Shia political and religious party, in XXXX 2018 and participated in approximately seven (7) to eight (8) peaceful protests, rallies, and hunger strikes in Pakistan in support of Shias.

[8] You joined the (inaudible) forum in XXXX 2018, an organization formed to provide legal support to Shias and other minorities in XXXX, your home city, and your particularly — you particularly helped three (3) or four (4) families who have been charged with blasphemy. You first began to receive threats in XXXX 2019 when you XXXX XXXX XXXX to a Shia neighbor for his XXXX. You received threats from XXXX XXXX XXXX, who arranged a group of people to attend and attempt to stop XXXX XXXX from happening. Mr. XXXX and his group called the Shias kafirs and infidels. The next day, your cousin who follows XXXX and also both — he also follows both the XXXX and the XXXX — he threatened you, telling you to revert to Sunni Islam and to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, or you will face the consequences. You receive more than one (1) threatening call from XXXX XXXX, a leader of the XXXX, who told you to revert to Sunni Islam and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or it would be the cause of your death. In XXXX 2019, you were physically attacked by four (4) armed individuals shouting XXXX slogans, calling you ‘Kafir’ and said, ‘If you wish to be alive,’ to ‘Revert to the Sunni faith and give back the land you donated.’ Your neighbours took you to the hospital to tend to your injuries. You then went to the police station who took your complaint, but when you gave the name XXXX XXXX to the police, the police’s attitudes changed and said that you were responsible for the attack and they did not issue an FIR, and you believe that the police told XXXX XXXX of the XXXX about your visit to the police because XXXX XXXX mentioned you in the phone calls.

[9] In XXXX 2019, XXXX XXXX forcibly entered your home with members of the XXXX while you were not present and searched for you. In XXXX 2019, your XXXX XXXX XXXX of the XXXX in XXXX was murdered by Sunni extremists on his way to work. You arranged a protest and demanded the police to lodge a FIR. You received more threats. You left Pakistan in XXXX 2019 and first flew to the United States where you had intended to make a refugee claim, but you were advised that your claim would be refused in the United States due to President Trump’s immigration policy, so you decided to come to Canada, and you arrived on the XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020 and made a refugee claim at the border. In your absence, the XXXX has posted a fatwa outside your residence, calling for your death as a blasphemer and apostate. You – friends – apostate. Your friends and family have stated that the XXXX continue to search for you.

Well-Founded Fear

[10] I find that you have established a subjective fear of persecution in Pakistan based on your conversion to the Shia faith. I also find that the objective evidence before me establishes that your fears of persecution are objectively well-founded. The country condition evidence as outlined in the National Documentation Package for Pakistan supports your allegations regarding the treatment of those who follow the Shia faith in Pakistan. Item 1.8 is the UNHCR guidelines for assessing religious minorities in Pakistan, and it indicates blasphemy is criminalized in Pakistan and can carry the death penalty. The addition of the blasphemy laws to the criminal penal code has “Contributed to the institutionalization of discrimination against religious minorities,” and has been criticized for fueling extremist violence and targeted attacks. The report indicates that Shiites are the main target of sectarian, attacks and the number of blasphemy allegations against Shiites increased exponentially between 2012 and 2015. Extremist militant groups view the Shiites as heretics, infidels, and apostates who should be punished by death. A footnote in the UNHCR report — and for the record, that is footnote 369 — indicates the four (4) militant groups which are responsible for most of the attacks against Shiites in Pakistan: one (1) is the XXXX and another is the XXXX.

[11] You have provided additional evidence regarding the treatment of Shias in Exhibit 5 that indicate sectarian violence has been rising in Pakistan. One (1) article from the Minority Rights Group describes a wave of online and offline campaigns against the Shia community in August and September 2020. Online hate speech was documented and there were major spikes in hate speech during that time period with the Urdu word for ‘Infidel’ being particularly prevalent in searches. Also in Exhibit 5 is an article from The Diplomat that shows at least six (6) large anti-Shia rallies took place by different Sunni groups in five (5) different cities, including Karachi. Another article he provided indicates that rallies were orchestrated on successive dates with at least 30,000 people attending, some chanting anti-Shia slogans, and there are also reports of Shias being killed in broad daylight by Sunni extremists.

[12] In addition, the objective evidence indicates that 43 blasphemy cases, primarily targeting Shias, were registered in August 2020 alone. One (1) of those charged was a mourner who was only three (3) years old. Societal violence due to religious intolerance is also reported by the United States Department of State report, which is Item 2.1 of the NDP, and it reports Shia Muslim activists reported continuing instances of targeted killings and enforced disappearances in part of the country – in parts of the country. One (1) article he provided in Exhibit 5 suggests that either the state has acquiesced to anti-Shia hysteria or is wholeheartedly backing it. The New York Times article in Exhibit 5 indicates the new political party in Pakistan, the Tehreek-e-Labbaik, was approved to run on a platform of punishing those who blaspheme Islam, and the leader of the political party was also the leader of the banned anti-Shia group, ASWJ. I find that the country condition evidence establishes that Shia practitioners are targeted by militant groups such as the XXXX and LeJ and political parties, such as the Tehreek-e-Labbaik, and you have established on a balance of probabilities that you have been personally targeted for death by the XXXX. As such, I find that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution, should you return to Pakistan.

State Protection

[13] As a presumption that – absent a complete breakdown, states are capable of protecting their citizens, however, I find that presumption has been rebutted in your case as the agent of persecution is in part, the state. You have sought assistance from the police when you were attacked, and they have refused to register a FIR and said that you were responsible for the attack. Furthermore, the local authorities were unable to protect your mentor, the president of the (inaudible) unit of the political party you were part of. He was targeted and murdered on his way to work in XXXX of 2019. The UNHCR report at NDP 1.8 indicates analysists describe the state authorities as being “Indifferent, incompetent, or even complicit in the violence and discrimination against Shiites.” So accordingly, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection and I find that there is no adequate state protection available to you.

IFA

[14] I find that there is no internal flight alternative for you in Pakistan. The objective country evidence indicated that attacks against Shiites occur throughout Pakistan. As already stated, large demonstrators against — demonstrations against Shias occurred in five (5) cities in succession in 2020. The XXXX is a group that operates throughout Pakistan and (inaudible) has issued a fatwa against you since you left Pakistan. And your family is still approached by members of the XXXX about you and they are keeping tabs on your activities as they had newspaper articles about you, concerning your — the protests that you attended in Calgary. One (1) of the largest militant authorization — organizations in the country has said that they want you killed for your conversion to the Shia faith. So, I find that there is no internal flight alternative available to you in Pakistan.

[15] So, in conclusion, based on the analysis above, I find that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 and I accept your claim. This hearing is now concluded.

[16] COUNSEL: Thank you, ma’am. Thank you very much.

[17] CLAIMANT: Thank you so —

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Iran

2022 RLLR 14

Citation: 2022 RLLR 14
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 4, 2022
Panel: Isis Marianne van Loon
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Farhad Khorsandgolchin
Country: Iran
RPD Number: VC1-06223
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is a decision in the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX who is a citizen of Iran who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DETERMINATION

[2] I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground.

ANALYSIS

IDENTITY

[3] I find that your identity as a national of Iran is established by your testimony and the supporting documentation on file which includes a certified true copy of your passport in Exhibit 1.

ALLEGATIONS, CREDIBILITY, AND FACT FINDING

[4] Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim form and in your testimony. The following is a brief summary. You never agreed with the sexism and the lack of freedom under Islam in Iran. Your family sent you to Canada to study and you converted to Christianity here in Canada. You fear persecution on the basis of your conversion if you return.

[5] The presumption before me is that your testimony is true; however, this can be rebutted in appropriate circumstances such as inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions or undetailed testimony. The presumption does not apply to inferences or speculation for which there is no evidentiary basis. You have provided several credible documents to support your claim in Exhibit 4.1. There is a letter from lead pastor XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming your participation from XXXX 2020 and stating that as of XXXX XXXX, 2021, you were taking the 12-week baptism course and the pastor supplied his contact information and invited me to contact him if he can be of further assistance.

[5] In Exhibit 4.2, you were baptized on XXXX XXXX, 2022. There is a certificate to this effect. This was at the XXXX XXXX XXXX. A second letter from Pastor XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX of 2022 confirms that you completed the baptism course and were baptized as well as your participation in church classes, activities, and Sunday worship services. Pastor XXXX XXXX states “I believe he is sincere in his new faith.”

[6] Your testimony was consistent and compelling. You were straightforward and forthcoming. You did not appear to embellish your description of events or actions, and I find you to be a credible witness and therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. Your narrative and your testimony corresponds to the ample objective evidence about conditions in Iran pertaining to those who disavow Islam and convert to Christianity. Accordingly, I have no reason to doubt the central elements underpinning your claim for protection. I accepted that you have converted from Islam to Christianity and given the foregoing, I accept that you subjectively fear persecution in Iran.

NEXUS

[7] I find the persecution you face has a nexus to the Geneva Convention, that of religion, due to your disavowal of Islam and your conversion to Christianity and therefore, I have assessed your claim under Section 96. I also note that you make some statements showing you hold a political opinion in opposition to that of the Iranian regime; however, I have found the previously mentioned nexus to be sufficient to determine your claim.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR

[8] In order to be considered a Convention refugee, you have to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. This includes both a subjective fear which you have already established, and an objective basis for that fear and it must be forward looking.

[9] Based on your testimony, supporting, documents, and the Country Condition documents, I find you have a well-founded fear of persecution for the following reasons: In testimony, you described the difficulties you had growing up. You wanted to listen to music but it wasn’t allowed because it didn’t conform to the Islamic requirements, you wanted to get together in mixed groups; once again, that wasn’t allowed, you had to hide your own feelings, you weren’t allowed to express yourself, your opinions, or your beliefs. You came to Canada to go to school and you found a degree of freedom that you hadn’t experienced before; however, you ran into a time of difficulty. There were family members who died in Iran, you weren’t able to return, you were alone here unable to work at home, and you spent a very difficult time of your life questioning the meaning of life. Then you told me that you had some acquaintance already with Christianity and its teachings and what happened was you found another meaning for your life and you found this through Christianity. You found the new meaning and tranquility and your life changed and you found that you could be happier and as you believed in your heart, everything improved in your life, you found peace of mind, a job, discipline in your life, and you attribute this all to Jesus Christ.

[10] The country documentation is consistent with your allegations of the treatment of converts such as ourself in Iran. The law prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religious beliefs, Under Iranian law, a Muslim who leaves his or her faith or converts to another religion can be charged with apostacy and apostacy from Islam is a crime that can be punished by death.

[11] Amnesty International stated the following in their June 2019 report entitled Iran Failing on all Fronts. Freedom of religion and beliefs continues to be systematically violated. The authorities impose, on people of all faiths as well as atheists, codes of conduct written in a strict interpretation of Shia Islam. The right to change or renounce religious beliefs continues to be violated with those converting from Islam at risk of arbitrary detention, torture, and the death penalty. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade assesses that those accused of religiously based charges are also likely to face charges related to national security and they are unlikely to have adequate legal defence and they are likely to be convicted. So, I’m satisfied that regardless of whether a convert faces the death penalty or imprisonment, the conditions and treatment are such that both amount to persecution. Accordingly, I find your fear of persecution in Iran is well-founded.

STATE PROTECTION AND INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[12] Except in situations where a state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. To rebut this presumption, you have to establish on a balance of probabilities with clear and convincing evidence that your state’s protection is inadequate. In this case, the agents of persecution is the states. The persecution you would face if you return to Iran is at the hands of the authorities. Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to you. The presumption of state protection is rebutted. The states are in control of its territories and therefore, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran for you and there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative where you could safely relocate given your circumstances.

CONCLUSION

[13] Based on the totality of the evidence, I have concluded that you are a Convention refugee. Accordingly, I am accepting your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”) and her spouse, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “associate claimant”). The Claimants are citizens of Honduras and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The details of the Claimants’ allegations are fully set out in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms and were supplemented by their oral testimony.[1] In summary, the Claimants fear they will be killed by the Mara 13, also known as the MS13, in Honduras because they stopped paying the ‘war tax” that the Mara 13 had extorted from them weekly and because the Claimants filed a report against the Mara 13 with the Honduran police.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find on a balance of probabilities that the Claimants would be subjected personally to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, at the hands of the Mara 13 should they return to Honduras, for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] The Claimants’ identities as nationals of Honduras are established by the sworn statements in their BOC forms and the certified copies of their Honduran passports contained in evidence.[2]

Nexus

[5] For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason of one or more of the five grounds enumerated under s.96 of IRPA: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Victims or potential victims of crime, corruption or personal vendettas generally cannot establish a link between fear of persecution and Convention reasons.[3]

[6] The Claimants submit that there is a nexus in their case to the Convention ground of political opinion and allege they face persecution due to their imputed political opinion.

[7] I find that there is nothing particular about this case which takes it outside the general principles as set out in Kang. I find the Claimants were victims of crime and their lives are at risk because they face retribution for ceasing to obey the Mara 13. As victims of crime who fear future criminality, I find that the Claimants have not established a nexus to one of the Convention grounds. I will therefore assess their claims under section 97(1) of IRPA.

Credibility

[8] The Federal Court has held in Maldonado that when a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, it creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness.[4] The presumption of truthfulness does not apply to inferences or speculation.

[9] In this case, I have found no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the Claimants. The principal claimant testified in a straightforward and convincing manner and was able to answer questions spontaneously and in detail about the extortion and the fear she felt on a daily basis. The Claimants provided corroborating evidence, found in Exhibit 5, to support their allegations including their business licence, photographs of the Claimants in their business, and a copy of the police report filed on XXXX XXXX, 2021.

[10] I find that the following facts have been established on a balance of probabilities:

a) The Claimants owned an operated a XXXX XXXX, or “XXXX”, in Honduras. The XXXX was a profitable business and had a large clientele.

b) In XXXX 2021, a masked man who identified himself as Mara 13 and who had XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX attended the XXXX and demanded the Claimants pay a “war tax” of 5000 lempiras on a weekly basis. The man stated that he knew everything about the Claimants’ family and their business and stated the Claimants would be killed if they did not pay the money.

c) Based on the man’s self identification as a member of the Mara 13 and because of his XXXX XXXX, I accept that the individual who extorted the Claimants was a member of the Mara 13 on a balance of probabilities.

d) Between XXXX 2021 and XXXX 2021, the amount the Claimants were extorted to pay rose from 5000 lempira weekly to 30,000 lempira weekly. The Claimants used profits from the business, their savings, and ultimately sold their cars and some personal belongings in order to make the payments.

e) The Claimants made one payment of 30,000 lempira on XXXX XXXX, 2021. The Claimants abandoned their home and business on XXXX XXXX, 2021, the day before the next payment of 30,000 lempira was due.

f) The Claimants made a police complaint against the Mara 13 on XXXX XXXX, 2021 at a police station in a different town. The Claimants spent the night of XXXX XXXX, 2021 at the airport awaiting their flight out of Honduras on XXXX XXXX, 2021.

Risk of Harm

[11] In order to establish they are persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(b), the Claimants must show they would be subjected personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment which is not faced generally by others in Honduras.

[12] When I consider the objective country evidence in relation to the Claimants’ profile as small business owners who have been previously extorted by the Mara 13, I find that the Claimants have established on a balance of probabilities that they face a risk to their life at the hands of the Mara 13 if they returned to Honduras.

[13] The National Documentation Package contains several articles and reports on the Mara 13. A report by Insight Crime, states that:

The Mara Salvatrucha (MS13) is one of the world’s largest and arguably most violent street gangs. After relatively humble beginnings in Los Angeles in the 1980s, it has spread to more than a half-dozen countries and become a central focus of law enforcement in two hemispheres. In spite of these efforts, the MS13 remains a persistent threat and shows signs of expanding its criminal portfolio. The MS13 has between 50,000 and 70,000 members who are concentrated in mostly urban areas in Central America or locations outside the region where there is a large Central American diaspora. In Honduras and Guatemala, the gang is still largely urban. Violence is at the heart of the MS13 and is what has made it a target of law enforcement in the United States, Central America and beyond. It is central to the MS13’s ethos, its modus operandi, and its evaluation and discipline of its own members. Violence also builds cohesion and comradery within the gang’s cliques. This use of violence has enhanced the MS13’s brand name, allowing it to expand in size and geographic reach, but it has undermined its ability to enter more sophisticated, money-making criminal economies.[5]

[14] The US Department of State Travel Advisory for Honduras states:

Hondurans continue to be affected by MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) and Calle 18 gang activity in cities such as Tegucigalpa, Choloma, La Ceiba, Tela, and San Pedro Sula. Most crime victims are members of rival gangs, small business owners who resist gang extortion, passengers on public transportation, or those involved in land disputes. The MS-13 and Calle 18 gangs are the most active and powerful gangs present in Honduras. Gangs are not reluctant to use violence, and specialize in murder-for-hire, carjacking, extortion, and other violent street crime…[6]

[15] In addition, the objective evidence indicates organized crime groups, including the Mara 13, use extortion as one of their primary sources of income.[7] One clique of the MS 13 murdered approximately 40 people between 2016 and 2019 “for not paying extortions, or on suspicion that [the victims] were informants for authorities”.[8]

[16] Furthermore,

Clique leaders keep a close eye and strict control over who gets targeted for extortion, how much money is collected and how often. New targets can be proposed and accepted during meetings. Gang leaders may also discuss issues with collection during those meetings, including whether or not to discipline a target for not paying, not paying on time or absconding.[9]

[17] One recent example of retribution against a pulperia owner occurred in October 2021. As reported in a Honduran newspaper, a pulperia owner refused to pay the extortion demands and was shot and killed on the street, presumably by gang members.[10]

[18] The objective evidence discussed above establishes that MS13 is a prominent and highly violent gang operating throughout Honduras, which uses the extortion of small business owners as a primary source of income.

[19] Given the Claimants have already been targeted by the Mara 13 and subsequently stopped making their regular extortion payments, I find, on a balance of probabilities, the Mara 13 are motivated to harm or kill the Claimants in retaliation for ceasing to pay them money, for reporting them to the police, and as a warning to others who refuse the Mara 13’s demands.

State Protection

[20] I find that there is no adequate state protection for the Claimants in Honduras.

[21] The principal claimant testified that when she and her husband filed the complaint with the police, the police told the Claimants that they would not be able to protect them as the police were understaffed and underfunded.

[22] The objective evidence supports the principal claimant’s testimony. As cited above, the Mara 13 has not been suppressed by state authorities; rather, the Mara 13 has been growing in both size and geographical reach. Objective evidence shows that police response to crime is unsatisfactory and undermined by lack of training and resources:

The government lacks resources to investigate and prosecute cases; police often lack vehicles/fuel to respond to calls for assistance. Police may take hours to arrive at the scene of a violent crime or may not respond at all.[11]

[23] Therefore, based on the evidence discussed above and the Claimant’s own experience in seeking protection from the police in Honduras, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimants will not be able to access adequate state protection in Honduras, and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[24] I find that there is no viable IFA for the Claimants in Honduras. The agent of harm is motivated to pursue the Claimants for refusing to comply with their demands and for reporting them to the police. As stated above, the Mara 13 uses violence to ensure compliance with their demands of extortion. The Mara 13 is a widespread criminal organization with significant resources and have the means and presence throughout the country to pursue the Claimants anywhere in Honduras. As already discussed, the objective evidence shows targets are disciplined by the Mara 13 for not making their payments and for absconding, both of which the Claimants have done. Therefore, I find that the Claimants will not be able to live safely anywhere in Honduras and they do not have a viable IFA.

CONCLUSION

[25] When I consider the Claimants’ personal circumstances, the objective country evidence, the lack of state protection and lack of viable IFA, I find that the Claimants have established on a balance of probabilities that they face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the Mara 13 if they were to return to Honduras. I therefore find that the Claimants are persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of IRPA and accept their claim.

(signed) Alannah Hatch

January 18, 2022

[1] Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2.

[2] Exhibits 1 and 5.

[3] Kang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1128at para. 10).

[4] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302.

[5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Honduras, November 30, 2021, tab 7.2 : MS13 in the Americas: How the World’s Most Notorious Gang Defies Logic, Resists Destruction. Insight Crime; Center for Latin American and Latino Studies. Steven Dudley, Héctor Silva Ávalos. 16 February 2018.

[6] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Honduras, November 30, 2021, tab 7.14: OSAC Country Security Report, September 13, 2021.

[7] Exhibit 5, “Extortion Drives Displacement of Victims and Perpetrators Alike in Honduras”, Insight Crime, Aug. 2, 2018. See also, “The MS13’s Vital Fuel: Extortion”, Insight Crime, April 26, 2019.

[8] Exhibit 5, “Inside an MS13 Clique’s Campaign of Terror at the Honduras-El Salvador Border”, Insight Crime, June 5, 2020.

[9] Supra, Exhibit 3, Tab 7.2.

[10] Exhibit 5, “Pulperia owner killed due to extortion”, La Prensa¸ October 11, 2021.

[11] Supra, Exhibit 3, Tab 7.14.

All Countries Iran

2022 RLLR 4

Citation: 2022 RLLR 4
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 8, 2022
Panel: Vanessa Fairey
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ramin Joubin
Country: Iran
RPD Number: VC1-06888
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-06913
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So, this is the decision.

INTRODUCTION

[2] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim for XXXX XXXX, who is the principal claimant, and her stepson XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant, who are citizens of Iran and who are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have heard these claims jointly pursuant to rule 55 of the RPD Rules.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The full allegations are set out in the claimants’ Basis of Claim forms found at Exhibit 2. However, I will summarize the allegations briefly. The principal claimant is a 52-year-old woman who has converted to Christianity. She was born into a Muslim family in Tehran. Her father was strict with Islam and imposed many of the rules on her. However, her mother was more liberal. The principal claimant was injured in a car accident when she was about 30 and was in a coma. An elderly Christian neighbour who is friends with her mother provided prayer and spiritual support for the principal claimant’s recovery. Once she had recovered from the coma, she began to think of Christianity as benevolent. Unfortunately, her neighbour passed away.

[4] The principal claimant then came to Canada in XXXX 2019 with her stepson, the associate claimant, where she continued to explore the Christian faith. She began to attend XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and gained knowledge from the church leaders. She states that she has formally converted in XXXX 2020. She also has a sister in Canada, who accidentally advised another Muslim sister in Iran of the principal claimant’s conversion. Her sister in Iran then informed her work, and she was fired. The principal claimant alleges that her conversion to Christianity places her at risk of persecution in Iran from both the state and her family. She believes that she is in danger if she returns to Iran.

[5] The associate claimant is a 19-year-old man and the stepson of the principal claimant. He came to Canada in order to study. He feels that Shia Islam is superstitious and restrictive. He disagrees with practices that he feels are outdated and has been exploring Christianity also. At the time of his initial claim, he did not yet consider himself to identify as a Christian but stated that his beliefs and lifestyle are un-Islamic and that he has renounced Islam. In addition to being considered an apostate, he also fears an imputed religious conversion, as his stepmother has converted formally to Christianity. Moreover, his allegations note that he fears conscription to the military in Iran.

DECISION

[6] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees in accordance with section 96 of the Act.

Identity

[7] I find that the claimants’ national identities as nationals of Iran is established through their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, including their passports found at Exhibit 1.

Nexus

[8] I find that the persecution feared by the principal claimant has a nexus to the Convention by reason of religion, as she has converted to Christianity. For the associate claimant, I also find there is a nexus to the Convention by way of religion, as his renunciation of Islam is considered apostasy.

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[9] The determinative issue in this claim is the credibility of the allegations. Pursuant to the Maldonado principle, it is presumed that sworn testimony is true, unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its truthfulness. In these cases, I find there to be no such reasons. Overall, the principal and associate claimants testified with authenticity and without embellishment at the hearing, and I find them both to be credible. Further, there was sufficient corroborative documents provided which supported the testimony and which I will discuss. I therefore accept what they have alleged in support of their claims. And specifically, I accept that the principal claimant is a Christian convert who subjectively fears persecution in Iran and that the associate claimant has also renounced Islam and is in the process of converting to Christianity and therefore subjectively fears persecution, as he is considered apostate.

[10] The principal claimant was asked about her conversion to Christianity and baptism. She stated that she attended classes for about 10 months in addition to regular services before being baptized. Her family in Canada also attended her baptism ceremony. And she testified that after, when her sister in Canada sent photos of another family birthday event, she also accidentally attached the baptism photos. This caused an issue with the principal claimant’s family in Iran, and they have not had positive relations since then. On the other hand, both she and the associate claimant testified that her husband and the father of the associate claimant, while remaining Muslim, does not take issue with her conversion. Additionally, her job had allowed her leave of absence, but once the year was up, they contacted her family in Iran to inquire about her return and were told she would not return and that she had converted to Christianity. She was then fired. She also spoke briefly about being interested in Christianity while in Iran but not having the option to attend church there, as it was not allowed. She articulated that she chose Christianity because she wanted peace of mind and tranquility, and due to the interpretation of Islam in Iran that women are not considered equal to men. She stated that she tried different churches, but that her church has Farsi interpretation available, and therefore, she is able to understand the content.

[11] The associate claimant also expressed that since coming to Canada and attending church with his stepmother, he now identifies as Christian, and he has plans to be baptized in the next few weeks. He testified that he is attending classes on Tuesdays to learn about Christianity and that he also attends services on Sundays. He was able to demonstrate knowledge of Christianity beyond a basic understanding, speaking about the mechanics of a service in particular. The associate claimant was asked to expand on what he disagrees with in Islam, and he stated that he does not like the constant bloodshed and war that he feels exists in the religion. He noted that there is a lot of sadness and limitations in the Islamic traditions in Iran.

[12] There is persuasive documentary evidence submitted in the claims, which are found at Exhibits 4 and 5. Regarding her conversion to Christianity, the principal claimant submits both confirmation and baptism certificates from Holy Trinity Catholic Church in North Vancouver. She also has a support letter on file from the priest of the church, and copies of text and email communications between herself and other church leaders and attendees, as well as a copy of her dismissal letter from her employer in Iran. There is also some limited documentary evidence regarding the associate claimant. He is also named in the support letter from the church, and there is some evidence of email communication between the church and himself.

[13] Overall, I find that both claimants are credible and have established a subjective fear of persecution in Iran.

Well-Founded Fear

[14] To establish one’s status as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, claimants must show that there is a serious possibility that they would be persecuted or, on a balance of probabilities, be subjected to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, if removed to their country of origin, in these claims, Iran. I find that the claimants have met that burden. The risk that the claimants allege is corroborated by the objective country conditions evidence provided in the National Documentation Package before me at Exhibit 3. Several documents speak to this. Found at 2.1 is the US Department of State report, which describes Iran as an authoritarian, theocratic republic with a governmental human rights record that is extremely poor. Islam is the official state religion. The law prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religion. The country conditions evidence found in Exhibit 3 at Tabs 12.11, 12.14, and 12.15 clearly indicates that religious freedom is virtually nonexistent in Iran, with the government engaged in systematic and ongoing egregious violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention, torture, and execution. Regarding their religious beliefs or absence of belief, their rejection of Islam may be understood as both a religious and, by extension, even political opinion that is against the theocratic regime in Iran.

[15] The principal claimant has fully converted to Christianity, which puts her at risk of persecution as apostate from Islam. The associate claimant has been involved with the church in Canada, and given his relationship to his stepmother, who has now fully converted, a perception that he is a convert to Christianity could also be imputed to him. Either way, he rejects Islam, which is considered apostasy and subject to grievous punishment in Iran. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran with a nexus to the Convention ground of religion. They fear the state and the principal claimant’s family, both. Apostasy is punishable by death, according to Iranian law.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative, IFA

[16] In these claims, the claimants’ religion as converts to Christianity, or in the process of converting to Christianity, and rejection of Islam is grounds of persecution. There is more than a mere possibility of persecution for both the claimants if they were to return to Iran. I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the state. As the state is feared as an agent of persecution, the claimants would not be able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities of Iran, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[17] Furthermore, as the claimants fear persecution at the hands of the state, they would not be able to relocate to escape the risks that they face, and there is no viable internal flight alternative. I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the entire country of Iran.

CONCLUSION

[18] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Accordingly, I accept their claims.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries China

2021 RLLR 87

Citation: 2021 RLLR 87
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 2, 2021
Panel: Avril Cardoso
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jordana Rotman
Country: China
RPD Number: TC0-01847
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for XXXX XXXX XXXX You are claiming to be a citizen of China and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally.

Determination

[2] I find that you are a Convention refugee on the ground of religion for the following reasons.

Allegations

[3] You allege the following. You were introduced to Christianity while working in Suriname in June 2017 from fellow Chinese ex-patriots. You returned to China and continued your Christian practice. In July 2018, while at a house church service, the PSB raided the home. After being interrogated and warned, you decided to leave China. With the aid of a smuggler, you came to Canada and claimed protection.

[4] You allege if you return, you face persecution. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an Internal Flight Alternative.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] I find that your personal identity as a citizen of China has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony, your RIC, passport and marriage certificate contained in Exhibits 5 and 6. I find that there is a link between what you fear and the Convention ground of religion and your claim is therefore assessed under Section 96.

Exclusion

[6] You resided in Suriname from XXXX 2014 to XXXX 2015. From XXXX 2015 to XXXX 2017 and again from XXXX 2018 to XXXX 2018, I have considered whether you are excluded from protection under Article 1E of the refugee Convention. I find that you do not have status substantially similar to Suriname nationals, nor did you previously have such status or access to such status. To obtain permanent status, you testified that you require residence for five years and a stable job. The evidence establishes that you resided in Suriname on a temporary basis subject to renewable residence permits. If you allowed a permit to expire, you would not be allowed re-entry and had to reapply. In support of your testimony, you submitted your Suriname residence permit, foreigner’s registration and the judicial decision to extend your stay until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. The federal court has held that where the country a claimant has taken up residence is tentative, they do not fall within the ambit of Article 1E. I therefore find that you are not excluded.

Credibility

[7] In terms of your general credibility, I 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 overall testimony was spontaneous, detailed, forthcoming and without embellishment. It was entirely consistent with your narrative. I find that you were introduced to Christianity in June 2017 while living in Suriname. Your testimony was detailed and most compelling. You described in detail what transpired at the house church service, explained how you were taught to pray and related the story of David and Goliath which you explained touched you briefly.

[8] You testified that at the time you were scared because of an event which transpired and you were afraid of going out. You said that you learned God would protect you as you saw David prevail against Goliath with God’s support and you slept peacefully when you returned home that evening. In support of your testimony, you submitted a letter from a fellow house church member in Suriname, contained in Exhibit 6. I find that you continue to practice your faith at the house church when you returned to China in XXXX 2017. You testified that the services were held at Mr. XXXX home and he was a group leader. You said there were 10 members and identified the pastor. You described your baptism in great detail and explained the meaning of baptism to Christians. I note that the baptism process outlined in the True Jesus belief, disclosure contained in Exhibit 7. You also submitted a baptism certificate from the pastor in China contained in Exhibit 6. I find that you were questioned by the PSB on July 22, 2018 and accept this event as declared in your narrative.

[9] You testified that you were able to exit China and did not encounter issues going through security. I find this is reasonable as you do not indicate that the PSB detained or charged you and it is therefore unlikely that your name would have been recorded. When asked why you needed to obtain a Canadian visa in August 2018 when you were in possession of a valid US visa, you testified that the smuggler advised you to do so as Canada embraced freedom of religion. I draw no negative inference against your credibility as you relied on an agent to leave China and you left China in XXXX 2018, only weeks after you were interrogated by the PSB. I find that your delay in claiming protection for 14 months is reasonable. You relied on advice from the agent, as well as your sister, who lives in Canada. You explained that the smuggler told you that without identity documents, your claim would fail and you would be deported to China. When asked if your sister helped to obtain legal advice in Canada, you said she made some telephone calls and was informed that you should expect a hearing in three to five months, and since you did not have your identity documents, your claim would be unlikely to succeed.

[10] I find that you are a genuine Christian. You provided detailed and spontaneous testimony about your activities at the church you attend in Canada, which is materially consistent with the letter provided by the church you attend and can be found at Exhibit 6. You also testified about the 5 rules and 10 beliefs of True Jesus adherence spontaneously and in detail. Your testimony about the meaning and impact of your faith in your life was most compelling.

[11] You explained that before you became a Christian, you consumed alcohol and did not listen to your parents and felt alone. You testified that you learned that you should be inspired by the Holy Spirit and not alcohol. You should listen to your parents in accordance with the 10 commandments and most importantly you learned that you can depend on God and pray to God for solutions. You said your faith has made you an easygoing person. I therefore find that your subjective fear is established by your credible testimony and corroborating documents.

Objective Basis

[12] Your fear of being deported to China in the present circumstances is a fear that is well-founded in the objective documents. The US Department of State report in 2.1 writes about the state in position of draconian restrictions on freedom of religion or belief. Authorities continue to imprison citizens for reasons related to politics and religion. The US International Religious Freedom Report writes about the 2019 to 2024 campaign of Sinicization to bring all religious doctrine and practice in line with CCP doctrine, the government offered financial incentives to law enforcement to arrest religious practitioners and to citizens who reported illegal religious activity. There are multiple reports of harassment and threats in Fujian province where you lived, this is in 12.1.

[13] The US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2021 report says that Chinese authorities harassed, detained, arrested and imprisoned members of protestant house churches who refuse to join the state sanctioned three self patriotic movement, this is in 12.2. A request for information report writes that authorities have repeatedly stated that one of the aims of the new regulations is to eliminate independent house churches compelling most of them to become part of the (inaudible) in 12.28. Your Counsel has also submitted objective country condition evidence which supports a well-founded fear. There is a report that the True Jesus Church in Hanon, Province has been forcibly demolished by Chinese authorities. This is contained in Exhibit 6.

State Protection

[14] There is a presumption of state protection unless the state is in a condition of complete breakdown. This presumption may be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the agent of persecution is the state. As the persecution you would face should you return to China is at the hands of the authorities, accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to you.

Internal Flight Alternative

[15] I have also considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists for you. I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout China and therefore no Internal Flight Alternative is available to you as the state is the agent of persecution and will be motivated to find you.

CONCLUSION

[16] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find you to be a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Pakistan

2021 RLLR 85

Citation: 2021 RLLR 85
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 18, 2021
Panel: L. Letheren
Counsel for the Claimant(s): John Savaglio
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: TB9-34953
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-35006 / TB9-35018 / TB9-35025
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So these are the reasons for the claims made by XXXX XXXX, file number TB9-34953, who’s the principal claimant, the associate claimant, XXXX XXXX, TB9-35006, and the minor claimants XXXX XXXX, TB9-35018, and XXXX XXXX XXXX TB9-35025.

[2] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are citizens of Pakistan. The minor claimant, XXXX XXXX, is also a citizen of the United States of America. They’re all claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3] XXXX (ph), sorry, XXXX XXXX is the minor claimants’ father and he’s the designated representative for these minor claimants. These claims are being held together in accordance with the Refugee Protection Division rule number 55.

[4] Your personal and national identities were established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the certified true copies of the passports that were included in the file. They demonstrate that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are citizens of Pakistan. XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Pakistan as well as United States.

[5] Your allegations are fully set out in your basis of claim forms which are Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4. You allege that you’re Shia Muslims. For the past 14 years the principal claimant, you’ve run a successful business and your financial situation allow you to make large donations to the imambargahs in your home area in Gujranwala. And that you’ve helped and managed and administer the Shia religious Majalis in your imambargah.

[6] You’ve also made many charitable donations to insist in improving the welfare of the poor in your community. You testified that your donations to the poor were given irrespective of the religion of the people. You were well-respected by many people in your business community, and because of your connections within the business community, you were able to assist many Shia leaders to get permission for religious ceremonies in Gujranwala.

[7] You testified that your activities drew negative attention from the radical Sunni in your community who accused you of spreading Shia Kafir among the vulnerable Sunni. You allege you were attacked and injured by men who identified themselves as soldiers of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi or LeJ when you were working in your office in Gujranwala.

[8] You and your family then moved to Rawalpindi for protection, and when your family were travelling in your car coming home from the market, shots were fired at you. You made police reports about both of these incidents but protections were not forthcoming, and as far as you learned, the police never did investigate these incidents.

[9] The threats from the LeJ members continued until you left Pakistan, and you’ve learned from your father that the LeJ have come to see him looking for you, and to give you warning not to return to Pakistan. And this happened after you had moved to Canada.

[10] You believe that you cannot safely return to Pakistan with your profile as a prominent financially-stable Shia Muslim who’s active in your Shia community.

[11] I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are convention refugees as you have established a serious possibility of persecution should you return to Pakistan. For the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX, this is based on the grounds of section 96 of your religion as a Shia Muslim. The associate and the minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX are members of a particular social group as they are family members of a prominent Shia who was targeted because of his religion.

[12] The minor claimant, XXXX XXXX, is not a convention refugee or a person in need of protection, as she has not established that there’s a serious possibility of persecution on a convention ground or that on a balance of probabilities she would be personally be subjected to a danger of torture, or face cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or risk to her life if she returned to the United States.

[13] Therefore the following reasons apply to my assessment of the remaining claimants. I found you, the principal claimant who provided testimony, to be a very credible witness. I did not find any inconsistencies between your testimony and the documents.

[14] Your evidence demonstrates for the past 14 years you have run your own business XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The business has been successful and your financial situation has allowed you to make large donations to your imambargahs in your home area in Gujranwala.

[15] Because of your prominence in your community you’ve helped to manage and administer the Majalis in your imambargah. You’ve made many charitable donations to assist in improving the welfare of your community. You testified that your donations to the poor were given irrespective of their religion. You were well-respected by many people in your community both Sunni and Shia members.

[16] Your evidence is that your aim at doing the work in your imambargah and in your community was to reduce the misconceptions about Shia, and to present a peaceful image for both Shia and Sunni to live together. You promoted the peaceful relationships between the two groups in your community by organizing a number of religious ceremonies and, and inviting lecturers into your community to explain more about the commonalities between these groups as opposed to their differences.

[17] As a result of this community involvement you were targeted by the LeJ. Members of the LeJ attacked you in your Gujranwala office. You were beaten and you were accused of spreading the Shia Kafir to the vulnerable Sunni. After you moved to Gujranwala — from Gujranwala to Rawalpindi and ended your religious and community activities, you continued to be threatened. Shots were fired at you and your family as you travelled through the city.

[18] The LeJ made further threats to you and your family, and you had supporting documents submitted at Exhibits 4 and 5 to corroborate your allegations. You disclosed supporting letter from your imambargah in Pakistan and that document corroborated your allegations about your donations and your involvement, along with the threats you received.

[19] You submitted police reports (indiscernible) reports, hospital records, and also you submitted many documents supporting your business activities. You had affidavits from several people who you had helped by making donations, and affidavits from your family members confirming your experiences, and that your father had been threatened since you left Pakistan.

[20] These documents demonstrate your continued practice of the Shia faith in Canada. They also demonstrate the persecution you experienced. So I find on a balance of probabilities that these documents corroborate your testimony and support your allegations that you were targeted in Pakistan by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi due to your profile as a well-established Shia businessman with significant prominence in your home community in Pakistan.

[21] You established your credible evidentiary basis for subjective fears in returning to Pakistan. Based on your credibility of your allegations and because of your profile, I find that you, your wife and children became targets of the LeJ. The evidence demonstrates that you continue to be targeted even after you left Pakistan.

[22] It established that you will continue to be an active Shia member if you were to return to Pakistan, and the feature if you would continue to demonstrate the importance to you of making donations and to assist those who are less fortunate. You expressed how important these activities are to you, as they integral to your beliefs.

[23] Your testimony and the documentary evidence that we have demonstrates that well-founded fear of persecution and there’s a serious possibility that you and your family will be subjected to death threats and violence at the hands of Islamic extremists if you returned to Pakistan.

[24] The evidence establishes that there’s been an increase in killings of Shias by militant groups, and targeted killings of Shia Muslim professionals and officials and prominent businesspeople in Pakistan. The risks you would face are corroborated by the package of country condition documents that are submitted at Exhibit 3; the national documentation package for Pakistan.

[25] Item 7.12 of that national documentation package describes the LeJ as a band Sunni militant group, a Sunni terrorist outfit being one of the most violent extremist organizations in Pakistan. It’s been responsible for the killing of hundreds of Shias since its formation in 1996, and the group has been behind some of the most violent attacks of Shia Muslims in the recent years.

[26] Item 1.8 of the national documentation package reports that the militant groups responsible for some of the most — are responsible for most of the attacks against Shias, are including the LeJ, and that sectarian violence against Shia continues to be a growing threat in Pakistan. There are reports of targeted killings of Shia professionals and officials, including doctors, politicians, prominent businesspeople, which is a profile that I find the principal claimant fits within.

[27] Item 12.5 indicates that Shia have traditionally represented the highest proportion of casualties in sectarian violence throughout Pakistan, noting that Shia faced threats from many militant groups including the LeJ. The Shia community is very large in Pakistan, and so not all Shias from Pakistan have a well-founded fear of, of persecution.

[28] However, the national documentation package supports your claim that due to the principal claimant’s prominence as a successful professional who’s made significant donations and being very active in the Shia community, you have a profile that would be likely attractive to the extremists like the LeJ.

[29] Your evidence demonstrates on a balance of probabilities that you’ve established a well-founded fear of persecution should you return to Pakistan.

[30] I find that you’ve also rebutted the presumption of state protection in your case. I accept that you contacted the police, that protection was not forthcoming. You filed reports to the police, your brother checked, checked back with the police and you’ve learned that nothing has ever been given as far as information with respect to the steps of the investigation into the incidents you reported.

[31] The objective documentary evidence in the national documentation package shows that the government has been criticized for failing to protect Shia Muslims from attacks and for allowing militant groups to operate with impunity, failing to investigate and punish those responsible for the violent attacks against Shias in Pakistan. It describes the authorities as often being indifferent, incompetent, and even complicit in the violence against Shias.

[32] Item 7.12 states that if someone is threatened by the LeJ, asking for protection from police is not effective because the Shia community is too large and the police cannot provide security to everyone. The courts are also ineffective because many of the witnesses don’t come forward to testify out of fear, and therefore they release suspects due to lack of evidence.

[33] In light of all this evidence I find there’s a preponderance of objective documentary evidence that there’s a clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable and unwilling to provide you with adequate protection.

[34] I considered whether it was safe for you to live in another area of Pakistan, and I suggested Lahore could be a viable alternative. I accept your evidence about the importance for you to be able to practice your faith and continue to contribute to your community.

[35] You testified that through these actions, through your business transactions, through your need to register or your rental documents and other documents with the police you would be identified, and that those working in government administration, many of whom could be sympathizers to the LeJ would identify you and you would be discovered.

[36] Item 1.8 of the national documentation package indicates that armed militant groups such as the LeJ have a wide geographic reach in Pakistan. Item 7.2 reports that the LeJ is responsible for violence throughout Pakistan, and that likely there’s no internal flight alternative available to those at risk of being targeted, or who have already been targeted by such groups.

[37] The LeJ continued their threats even after you left Gujranwala, and since coming to Canada. This demonstrates that they have a continued interest in finding you and that they would find you and harm you if, if you returned to Pakistan.

[38] Even if you were able to relocate for a short period of time in Lahore, your active faith and your, and your donations, your activities in your community would again make you a prominent figure in this community and this would create a serious possibility that you would eventually be found and persecuted in the future.

[39] It would be unreasonable for the Board to expect you to restrict your religious practices and your freedom to assist your communities just because of your fear of this group. The LeJ has been persistent in its search for you, demonstrated a continued motivation, and I find that they have the capacity to find you, given their reach and influence in Pakistan.

[40] The associate claimant and the minor claimant are also Shia. The associate claimant and the children may not have the same heightened profile as the principal claimant, but they are also at risk. In the past you were, you were with the principal claimant in a vehicle when you were under attack. The LeJ soldiers have indicated that they would harm all of you as a family.

[41] You’ve credibly demonstrated on the evidence that there’s a serious possibility that you also would face risk if you returned to Pakistan and throughout Pakistan, including Lahore.

[42] The Board therefore finds that on a balance of probabilities the claimants’ lives would be at risk throughout Pakistan. The Board’s determined that the claimants have no viable internal flight alternative in Pakistan, including Lahore.

[43] Based on this analysis I conclude that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are convention refugees and I accept your claims.

[44] The minor claimant, XXXX XXXX, is neither a convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. Her claim is therefore rejected by the Board.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Iran

2021 RLLR 84

Citation: 2021 RLLR 84
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 6, 2021
Panel: Chelsea Peterdy
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ardeshir H Zarezadeh
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-31929
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection of XXXX XXXX, file number is TB9-31929. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. You are claiming to be a citizen of Iran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97.(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Determination:

[2] I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of your religion for the following reasons.

Allegations:

[3] Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim form, which is found in Exhibit 2. In summary, you allege that you are a citizen of Iran who was born Muslim but converted to Christianity after coming to Canada in XXXX 2019. You alleged that you faced a number of problems with the Iranian regime that began during your university years in the late ‘70s. You alleged that you were opposed to the regime after the revolution and that you had become politically active.

[4] You were detained for one week in 1981 and questioned about your activities and your friends’ activities. You also allege that you had difficulties as a woman and struggled to find employment due to your political activities and gender. Furthermore, in March 2019, you allege you were arrested and detained for one night for violating the dress code.

[5] Your husband posted your bail the next day to have you released. He testified that you struggled a lot and experienced intense inner turmoil. In or around 2014, 2015, you began attending a yoga class. In this class, you met other Christians who would talk to you about Christianity and Jesus Christ. The yoga instructor also provided you a book on peace that included quotes from the Bible and Jesus Christ.

[6] You became interested in Christianity but could not explore further in Iran. You came to Canada in XXXX 2019 to visit your sister and started attending a Christian church here. Since May 2020, you have been attending a church online that has Bible studies in Farsi. You wish to be baptized, but because of the COVID-19 pandemic, you have unable to. You fear that if you return to Iran, you would be arrested and killed for converting to Christianity.

Identity:

[7] Your identity as a national of Iran has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the supporting documents filed in Exhibits 1 and 5, such as your passport.

Credibility:

[8] In terms of your general credibility, I find that you are a credible witness and therefore, believe what you have alleged. You were straightforward and forthright in your oral testimony. While you could not remember the name of the church, you were able to tell me your pastor’s name. You testified that you attend church twice a week online and that you were introduced to this church through a friend named XXXX (ph).

[9] You were able to tell me about the service, your favourite passage from the Bible and what it means to you, how you celebrated Easter and the meaning of the holiday, as well as what it means to you to be a Christian and the peace and calm you have found since converting. I have also considered the documentation you filed, including the assessment from the psychotherapist where you talked about the difficulties you faced in Iran and its impact that it has had on your mental state.

[10] You have been diagnosed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and I have considered the report in assessing your credibility today. You also provided a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX (ph) who confirms that you have been attending his church online since May 2020 and describes you as an enthusiastic member of the Farsi speaking Bible study which meets weekly.

[11] You provided an email from a friend in Iran who describes your political activities in university and how you have talked to him about Christianity for the past few years. You also provided the bail receipt confirming your husband posted your bail on March 26, 2019 after you had been arrested for dress code violations in Iran. Therefore, based on your credible testimony and the documentary evidence provided, I find on a balance of probabilities that you have converted to Christianity and that you have established a subjective fear of persecution.

Objective Evidence:

[12] The objective documentation supports your allegations and the risks you face on return to Iran as a Christian convert. The objective evidence in the National Documentation Package talks about the persecutory treatments of Christians and in particular, Muslims who have converted to Christianity.

[13] Items 12.1 and 12.15 of the National Documentation Package state that Iran is an Islamic Republic and Islam is the official state religion. The law prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religious beliefs and the only recognized conversions are from another religion to Islam. Apostasy from Islam is a crime punishable by death and Christin converts face harassment, interrogation, and arrest from the government and are forced to practice in secret. Additionally, I have considered the evidence in the National Documentation Package on the human rights situation for women in Iran.

[14] Item 2.1 says that amongst a significant human rights abuses in Iran, there is a harsh governmental restriction on the rights of women.

[15] Item 2.5 states that women face discrimination and personal status matters and talks about the dress code in Iran and harsh sentences for women who protest compulsory hijab laws.

[16] I find this evidence regarding the treatment of women also heightens the risk you faced in Iran, not only as a Christian convert, but as a woman. Therefore, based on this documentary evidence, I find that you have an objectively well-founded fear of persecution due to your religion that is only exacerbated by your gender.

State Protection:

[17] I find that state protection would not be available to you were you to seek it in Iran. There is a presumption that absent to complete (inaudible) are capable of protection their citizens, however, there are agents of the state themselves are sources of persecution presumptuous of state protection may be rebutted without exhausting all avenues or recourse in the country.

[18] In this case, the agent of persecution is the state that bans conversion to Christianity and restricts freedom of religion. Therefore, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection and that adequate state protection would not be available to you in Iran.

Internal Flight Alternative:

[19] I have also considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists for you, however, given that Iran is in control of all of its territories and the persecution of Christians is state wide, I find that you face a serious possibility persecution throughout Iran and there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative for you.

Conclusion:

[20] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that you are a Convention refugee and your claim is therefore accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Pakistan

2021 RLLR 79

Citation: 2021 RLLR 79
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 4, 2021
Panel: Laurie Letheren
Counsel for the Claimant(s): John Savaglio
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: TC0-01196
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I’ve had an opportunity to review your testimony today as well as all of the documents you provided, and I am now ready to provide my decision and my reasons. I have found that you are a Convention refugee on the basis of your religion, as a Shia Muslim who is persecuted because of your religion in Pakistan. And here are, the following are my reasons.

[2] So, this is the claim made by XXXX XXXX, file number TC0-01196. You’ve established both your personal identity and your citizenship as a citizen of Pakistan through your documents and in particular, the certified true copy of your passport. The allegations that you made were set out fully in your Basis of Claim form at Exhibit 2. As well as the amendments you made to that form at Exhibit 4.

[3] You allege that you are a Shia Muslim. You had some success, financial success as an XXXX when you worked in the U.A.E. where you worked for many years. And even though you were unable to openly practice your Shia faith in the U.A.E., you remained dedicated to your Shia faith and your community. And you made large donations to your Imam Bargah for its expansion back in Pakistan. You gathered donations from other members of the Shia community in the U.A.E. and with those, you were able to again make further large donations in 2018.

[4] This resulted in some suspicion by the Government of the U.A.E. And you were questioned by the U.A.E. Intelligence about your Shia activities and you were ordered to leave the U.A.E. in July of 2019. And that you and your family did leave in, XXXX of 2019.

[5] So, I find that although you lived in the U.A.E. for many years, your residency there was temporary. And you didn’t have a status in the U.A.E. that was substantially similar to that of its nationals. So, I therefore find that the circumstances of your claim do not engage any exclusions under Article 1-E of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[6] So, according to your allegations and the testimony you gave today, you moved to Pakistan in XXXX of 2019. You became very engaged in your Shia community. And you were appointed as the XXXX XXXX of the Imam Bargah. You became very popular with the religious leaders and with members of your community. And you became very well known throughout your community.

[7] This attracted the attention of the Sunni extremists and in particular, members of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi who threatened you to the point where you feared for your life. And you left Pakistan in XXXX of 2019. You feel you can’t return to Pakistan with your profile as a prominent Shia who is very active in your community. And that because of this prominence and the interconnectedness of members of the LeJ and other Sunni extremist groups, you wouldn’t be safe anywhere in Pakistan. You would not be provided adequate state protection.

[8] I found that you were a very credible witness. I didn’t find any inconsistencies between your testimony and what you have in your Basis of Claim form and the documents you filed. It did demonstrate that you worked in the U.A.E. as an XXXX for many years. And that you were able to provide XXXX XXXX to your Imam Bargah in the form of very substantial donations on your own. And then very substantial donations over a period of time through the donations you collected through other members of the Shia community in the U.A.E.

[9] You sent that money to Imam Bargah in Sialkot (ph) which is a city in the Punjab Province. And you helped to maintain the Imam Bargah to expand it and to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Of Imam Bargah. A great deal was done by your donations to assist this Imam Bargah.

[10] After you returned to Sialkot, you were assigned the role of the XXXX XXXX XXXX of your Imam Bargah which involved XXXX XXXX and in these events you explained that it was a bit unique the type of Majaliss and organizing that you did. ln that you had both Sunni and Shia speakers who came together that you explained to speak about the common believes of the Sunni and Shia. And to attempt to moderate the differences between these two (2) Muslim sects in Pakistan.

[11] You wanted to work towards the education of the people. And to try to debunk some of the misconceptions that the Sunnis have about Shia. You testified how important it was to you to do this because in the 80s and 90s, you didn’t have so many difficulties being a Shia and being a minority in Pakistan. You explained that through all this work that you did, you became very well known. And a prominent member of your Shia community. You were out in your community often, talking to the members. And you became a face that was recognizable.

[12] So, as a result of all of this involvement, you were targeted by the anti-Shia extremist group the Lashkar-e Jhangvi or the LeJ. On one (1) evening after the Majaliss on September 10th, 2019 your car was stopped by armed men. You were beaten and assaulted by these men who told you that they had received from reports from their supporters, from the people who support and who believe in them, about your work. And the work that you were doing in the area. And they were accusing you of influencing impressionable Sunni. And trying to convert the Sunni to be Shia. And they called you a Kafir, and that you were spreading the Shia Kafir.

[13] So, after this happened and you were hospitalized, your family and the leaders of the Imam Bargah suggested that you should be leaving Sialkot. And so, you and your family moved to an area of Rawalpindi. But the same day, you said around 4 o’ clock on September 11th, you received a call from a group identifying themselves again as the LeJ. They called you a Kafir and said you were on their hit list and they would shoot you the next time they saw you in Pakistan.

[14] You reported this call to the police. And the police said you should take your own precautions, provide your own safety because they couldn’t do anything to assist you as they didn’t have enough information about the men who attacked you. In order to try to have some safety, you turned off your phones. And you tried to keep yourself hidden while you were in Rawalpindi.

[15] On the same day, September 11th, 2019 your parents told you that some armed men attended at their home. They did some damage to their home. They explained they were trying to find you to make an example of you. And that they would, to tell you, warn you, that they would find you. And if they did, they would kill you. Your brother reported this incident to the police. And they told him to tell you, you should just leave Pakistan as it appeared that the LeJ were intent on finding you and that they would kill you.

[16] So, you left for Canada in the next few days. Your family has reported that neighbours have told them that from time to time these same extremists have come around your neighbourhood in Sialkot asking for you. And that as recently as April 4^th 2021 some people came around asking about you. Said they still planned to kill you if you returned to Pakistan.

[17] So, all of your supporting documents which are at Exhibits 5 and 6 corroborate your allegations. You disclosed letters from your Imam Bargah which corroborated the work that you did. The donations you made. And the persecution you experienced. You also submitted police reports, FIRs, and hospital reports which corroborated your testimony. You have many affidavits from several individuals who confirmed your involvement with the Shia community in Pakistan. As well as the threat and harms that you experienced by the LeJ. The affidavits from your brother confirm that members of the LeJ continue to ask about you and continue to threaten you. So, your documents do demonstrate as well that you continue to practice your Shia faith in Canada. Given the COVID restrictions, it’s not how you would ordinarily practice, but you are a member of the Shia community.

[18] So, I find on a balance of probabilities that these documents corroborate your testimony and support your allegations. That you were targeted in Pakistan by the LeJ due to your profile as an established Shia, prominent in your community. You’ve established a very credible evidentiary basis for your subjective fears of returning to Pakistan.

[19] And based on your credibility and your allegations, that you became a target of the anti-Shia extremist group, the LeJ, and that this continues. And also, your evidence is corroborated and supported by the documentary evidence that we have in our National Documentation Packages. They demonstrate that you have a well-founded fear of this persecution. That there is a serious possibility that you would be persecuted by the LeJ if you were to return to Pakistan.

[20] The evidence in the NDP demonstrates there have been increased killings of Shia by militant groups. Targeted killings of Shia professionals and officials and those who are prominent members of the community. It also establishes the risk that you would face, especially at exhibits throughout the National Documentation Package. Such as at Item 1.8 that reports that militant groups are responsible for most of the attacks against Shia. And that groups such as the LeJ have continued to be growing and they are a growing threat. There are reports about targeting killings of professionals, Shia professionals and officials. And those who have a profile such as yours, to be prominent. Persons such as engineers who are perceived to be a financial influence. And could be influential throughout the Shia community.

[21] Item 12.5 indicates that Shia have traditionally represented a higher proportion of the casualties of the sectarian violence throughout Pakistan. And in particular, by anti-Shia militant groups. Even though the Shia community is a very large community in Pakistan and not all Shias from Pakistan have a well-founded fear of persecution, the NDP does support your claim that due to your prominence and being someone who is now targeted, you would continue to likely be more, there’s a very high reason to anticipate that you would be targeted if you returned to Pakistan. So, I find that this objective evidence demonstrates on a balance of probabilities that you’ve established a well-founded fear of persecution should you return to Pakistan.

[22] You’ve rebutted your presumption of state protection. You indicated that even though you registered the incident that happened with the first information report, you were told that the police would not be naming the LeJ even though they had clearly identified themselves to you. When you made further complaints about the threats at your parents’ home and the phone calls that you received, you were just told by the police to take your own precautions. That they couldn’t help you. And that perhaps in the end they suggested you should leave the country as it appeared that this group was motivated to kill you. And that they couldn’t provide you with the safety you needed.

[23] This is also supported in the objective documentary evidence we have in the National Documentation Package. Which demonstrates that the government has been criticized for failing to protect the Shia community from their attackers. And for allowing militant organizations to operate with impunity. They failed to investigate or punish those that are responsible for violent attacks against Shias in Pakistan.

[24] As well, Item 7.12 states that if someone has been asking for some protection from extremist organizations, the police are not effective. They cannot provide security. And courts are not effective. And often, as you indicated, these groups seem to be able to get their members released from courts due to what is often called lack of evidence. So, I find that both your testimony and the evidence, that there’s a preponderance of evidence to demonstrate that you have clear and convincingly demonstrated that the state is unable and unwilling to provide you with adequate state protection.

[25] At the beginning, l suggested that you may have an internal flight alternative within the city of Lahore. But I accept your testimony about the influence and the interconnectedness of these extremist groups. As well as their connections within the police and other government organizations. They have a presence throughout and are connected throughout Pakistan.

[26] Item 1.8 of the National Documentation Package indicates that armed militant groups such as the LeJ have wide geographic reach. Item 3.18 confirms what you were testifying about, the need to register any rental agreement you have with the police. As well as any kind of various interactions you would have with government officials. Just in doing your daily business.

[27] And Items 7.9 and 7.10 discuss how the police and government in Pakistan work together with these extremist organizations. They continue, the LeJ continue to make threats even though you moved from your original location in Sialkot. And they also have demonstrated that they are continuing, have a continuing interest in finding you. And have indicated that if they were to find you, they would kill you.

[28] They’ve therefore demonstrated their motivation to continue to locate you. Regardless of where you would be in Pakistan. You’ve indicated that even if you were to move to Lahore, you may only be protected for a short time. Because due to the importance of practicing your faith, being part of Imam Bargah and being a part of your community, you would eventually be located.

[29] There’s a serious possibility that those within Lahore who support a group such as the LeJ would be able to inform them where you are. l find that it is unreasonable to expect you to restrict your religious practice or restrict any of your freedom because you fear this group.

[30] So that, l therefore find that on a balance of probabilities, your life would be at risk throughout Pakistan. You have no internal flight alternative that is viable for you, including Lahore. You also would have no state protection.

[31] So, therefore based on all of my analysis, all of your testimony, the evidence that we have, I conclude that you are a Convention refugee. And I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Somalia

2019 RLLR 220

Citation: 2019 RLLR 220
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 14, 2019
Panel: A. da Silva
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Douglas Lehrer
Country: Somalia
RPD Number: TB6-04576
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00584
ATIP Pages: 000438-000440

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: Sir, I’ve considered your testimony and the evidence in this case and I’m prepared to render an oral decision.

[2] Okay and when the written reasons are issued they may be edited for spelling, grammar and references to documentary evidence.

[3] This is the decision in the claim of, XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Somalia and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4] The claimant alleges the following:

[5] He is a member of the minority XXXX clan and practices the Sufi version of Islam.

[6] In 1993, while living in Kismayo, he and his family were attacked by members of the Hawiye clan. As a result, his mother was injured and eventually died from the injuries.

[7] He and his family then fled to the village of <inaduible>where they had relatives.

[8] ln 2002, the family left for the safety of Kenya and the claimant stayed there until he left for the United States in 2015.

[9] In the United States, he made a claim for asylum which was rejected. He subsequently crossed the border into Canada and initiated a claim for refugee protection.

[10] The key issues in this case were the claimant’s identity, credibility and internal flight alternative.

[11] His personal and national identity as a citizen of Somalia has been established by his testimony and the evidence presented at his initial hearing which was subsequently confirmed by the Refugee Appeal Division.

[12] At his de novo hearing today, the claimant testified as to his identity as a member of the XXXX clan and his Sufi religious background. A witness also appeared on his behalf and confirmed that he knows the claimant to be a member of the XXXX clan and his Sufi religious background.

[13] I am persuaded, on a balance of probabilities, that he is who he says he is with respect to his clan affiliation and religious background.

[14] I also find that the claimant’s testimony has been consistent and been delivered in a direct manner with a ring of truth. I find him to be a credible witness.

[15] The most recent information on country conditions indicate that the Somali authorities have limited ability to provide human rights protection to society. The situation in both Mogadishu and Kismayo, though under the control of the African Union Mission in Somalia, continues to be precarious.

[16] I have considered the claimant’s profile and the current situation in Somalia and whether he could live in either Mogadishu or Kismayo if he was returned to Somalia. Somalia continues to be a dangerous country, especially for members of the minority clans and those who practice less conventional forms of Islam.

[17] The claimant is also someone who has been out of the country for some 17 years and would find it difficult to assimilate into the current culture and situation.

[18] He would, therefore, be viewed with suspicion, especially by certain elements, such as, members of Al-Shabaab.

[19] Having considered the evidence, including his testimony and that of his witness, the claimant’s profile and the current conditions in Somalia, I find that there is a reasonable chance that he would be harmed were he to be returned to Somalia.

[20] I, therefore, find that he has satisfied the burden of establishing a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground and I, therefore, conclude that he is a Convention refugee and I accept his claim.

[21] I will return through Counsel, his original documents.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Iraq

2019 RLLR 219

Citation: 2019 RLLR 219
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 15, 2019
Panel: M. Lalonde
Counsel for the Claimant(s): John Rokakis
Country: Iraq
RPD Number: TB6-07934
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2019-00482
ATIP Pages: 001574-001577

On January 15, 2019, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the claim of XXXX, who claims refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). On that same day, the panel rendered its oral positive decision and reasons for decision. This is the written version of the oral decision and reasons that have been edited for clarity, spelling, grammar and syntax with added references to the documentary evidence and relevant case law where appropriate.

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the claim to refugee status made by Madam XXXX file number TB6-07934.¹

[2] The claimant is a citizen of Iraq. An edited copy for clarity, grammar, and syntax will be sent to the claimant and I may add references to documentary evidence or jurisprudence if appropriate.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find the claimant a Convention refugee under Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act² for the following reasons.

[4] The claimant arrived in Canada in 2016. She came from XXXX where she was given a protection document from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).³ The claimant had a previous hearing and during that first session she was given a negative decision. The panel had wondered if there was not a possibility for the claimant to return to Lebanon.

Identity

[5] Firstly, I will deal with the issue of identity. The claimant established her identity by providing her passport, a citizenship certificate, as wells as the certificate from the High Commissioner for Refugees.⁴ There are other documents which do not need to be mentioned.

[6] There is no doubt that the claimant is an Iraqi citizen.

[7] The (UNHCR) certificate indicates that the document was only valid until 20l6. It is not a permanent residency status. The Minister acknowledged this (fact). Exhibit 8 and 9 indicate that the documentary evidence before the Minister at this time does not suggest that the claimant has permanent resident status in Lebanon. At exhibit 8, the Minister indicated that the relevant information related to identity and credibility issues is already before the Board. The Minister has nothing else to add and will not intervene on this claim at this time.

[8] The (identity) concern has been cleared to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Therefore, the case is against Iraq only.

ALLEGATIONS

[9] The claimant listed the problems that prompted her to leave Iraq in her Basis of Claim (BOC).⁵

[10] In a nutshell, the claimant was residing in XXXX with her family. Her brother was kidnapped by ISIS. Her father paid a hefty ransom. He (her brother) was not released even though the ransom had been paid. The army was able to free her brother. Moreover, through all of this they were bombing. The shop of her father was looted and burnt: everything was destroyed. The whole family had to leave XXXX.

[11] The claimant’s brother and father came to (the hearing) to provide explanations on their residency in XXXX. The panel found the two witnesses credible. They were candid and testified in a straightforward manner. There were no discrepancies between the answers to all questions asked, or with the written statements and previous statements throughout their testimonies.

[12] The panel has no reasons to doubt the credibility of all the witnesses and including the testimony of the claimant.

State protection

[13] Therefore, it leaves the question: what would happen to the claimant should she return to Iraq. As they testified (the claimant and witnesses), as well as in documentation, they are problems … (still): the situation is still dangerous in Iraq. Documentary evidence supports the claimant’s allegations that (bombing incidents) are occurring even in this (year) early 2019.

[14] The US Department of State report on Iraq, country reports on human right practices for 2017 for Iraq outlines the general political situation and human lights climate in Iraq is tense. Violence continued throughout the year (2018) largely fuelled by the action of the Islam State in Iraq and Syria ISIS.

[15] Although Government forces fought to liberate territory taken earlier by ISIS including XXXX, armed clashes between ISIS and government forces caused civilian death and hardship, and indeed security forces had liberated the territory from ISIS drastically reducing ISIS’s ability to commit abuse and atrocities. However, the most significant human rights issues included allegations of unlawful killings by some members of ISF, and particularly some element also of another group PMF. Disappearance, extortion, elements, and torture is also reported.⁶

[16] It shows that ISIS committed the majority of serious abuses and atrocities. ISIS members committed acts of violence on a mass scale including killing through suicide bombings and improvise explosive devices, executions including shooting and public beheading, use of civilians as human shields, as well as use of chemical weapons, and the list goes on to include kidnapping, rape, enslavement, forced marriage, and sexual violence.⁷

[17] Such acts were committed against civilians from a wide variety of religious and ethnic backgrounds including Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, and Yiddish.⁸

[18] In this kind of climate, as her brother pointed out, the claimant, a woman, cannot live by herself. Of course, in her culture it would be highly risky should she return to Iraq.

[19] Therefore, whatever progress had been made around XXXX, it’s still a town which is according to the claimant’s brother, 90 percent is destroyed and is not safe. As well they are also bombing in Baghdad and other places. Reports from other sources do report such incidents.

[20] Therefore, one cannot expect that State protection (to be available)⁹ in this kind of climate. Moreover, the claimant, according to her allegations is situated in a position where she would still face more than a mere possibility of being persecuted should she go back to Iraq.

[21] Lastly, those allegations are the same for the whole family. Her father was accepted as a refugee in XXXX 2014.

[22] For all these reasons her claim is accepted, as I indicated under Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

—REASONSCONCLUDED—

¹ This is a De Novo hearing pursuant to the claimant’s appeal, which was granted January 23, 2017.

²Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, sections 96 and 97 (1).

³ The UNHCR Refugee Protection document confers temporary protection against refoulement to Iraq.

⁴ Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/ CIC, photocopies of passport, citizenship certificate and certificate from the High Commissioner for Refugees.

⁵ Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC) – TB6-07934.

⁶ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP, Item 2.1.

⁷Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 203

Citation: 2019 RLLR 203
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 15, 2019
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-01027
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002797-002801

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a citizen of Egypt who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).¹ The claimant’s identity has been established by a copy of her passport.²

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimant fears return to Egypt because she fears religious persecution by Muslim extremists. The claimant is a Christian. The claimant received threats by Muslim extremists calling her “infidel” and “enemy of Allah” because she was hosting Bible studies in her home for women. The claimant also faced harassment because she refuses to wear a hijab, including being pushed to the ground. The claimant left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 and arrived in Canada on the same day. Further details are highlighted in her Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.³ The claimant signed her BOC on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.⁴ The panel has reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution⁵ in this decision.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[3] The claimant provided a detailed narrative and documents supporting her Christian religion.⁶ The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fear of religious persecution by Muslim extremists in Egypt. The evidence indicates that there has been an increase in sectarian violence against Christians.⁷ The evidence indicates that there have been violent attacks against Christians by Muslim extremists throughout Egypt including in Cairo and in Alexandria.⁸ The panel finds that the claimant has established a nexus to religion because of her Christian faith and that she would face more than a mere possibility of persecution if she returns to Egypt.

State Protection

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

The government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses, whether in the security services or elsewhere in government. In most cases the government did not comprehensively investigate human rights abuses, including most incidents of violence by security forces, contributing to an environment of impunity.⁹

[5] A Human Rights Watch report dated March 13, 2017 indicates that Christians who have been targeted by Muslim extremists report that Egyptian security forces are “apathetic” in their response to assist Christians.¹⁰ Further reports indicate that:

The authorities continued to violate the right to freedom of religion by discriminating against Christians. In August, security forces prevented dozens of Coptic Christians from praying in a house in Alforn village in Minya governorate, citing reasons of security. There was continued impunity for sectarian attacks on Christian communities, and the authorities continued to rely on customary reconciliation and settlements agreed by local authorities and religious leaders. Amid this impunity, violence by non-state actors against Christians increased significantly.¹¹

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

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who first took power in a July 2013 coup, continues to govern Egypt in an authoritarian manner, though the election of a new parliament in late 2015 ended a period of rule by executive decree. Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Terrorism persists unabated in the Sinai Peninsula and has also struck the Egyptian mainland, despite the government’s use of aggressive and often abusive tactics to combat it.¹²

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

In the first several months of 2017, Egypt has witnessed a number of events that have challenged the country’s stability and security, economic development, and the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The Egyptian government has continued its repercussion of public space, even going so far as to physically close the offices of the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence and Torture in early February. The country is no more stable, with terror groups and the Egyptian state engaged in a war of propaganda narratives. The Islamic State’s affiliate in mainland Egypt has targeted churches on Palm Sunday and announced its ”emir” in Islamic State media. The Islamic State’s Wilayat Sinai also is increasingly targeting the Christian population as it continues to claim control over urban areas in North Sinai even as Egypt’s army and tribal militias commit violence against unarmed residents of Sinai. A year ahead of scheduled elections, human rights lawyer and rumored presidential candidate Khaled Ali has been detained by security forces and smeared in pro-regime media as fomenting dissent.¹³

[8] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimant in Egypt at this time.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[9] In Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Court of Appeal held that, with respect to the burden of proof, once the issue of an internal flight alternative was raised, the onus is on the claimant to show that she does not have an IFA.¹⁴ The burden placed on a claimant is fairly high in order to show that the IFA is unreasonable. In the Federal Court of Appeal decision of Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) in 2001, it was stated that the test is to show that the IFA is unreasonable.¹⁵ That test requires nothing less than the existence of conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimants in relocating to a safe area. Actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions is required. The panel must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that (1) the claimant would not be subject personally to a danger of torture, or to a risk of life or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment or face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA and (2) that conditions in that part of the country are such that it would be objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to seek refuge there.

[10] The objective evidence provides examples of targeting of Christians with impunity in Cairo and Alexandria. For example, in December 2016, an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) affiliated suicide bomber killed 29 people in an attack against a Christian church, Saints Peter and Paul Church in Cairo.¹⁶ Reports of bombings at Christian churches also occurred in Alexandria in April 2017 during Palm Sunday at St. Mark’s Cathedral.¹⁷ The same report indicates that “Muslims opposed to church construction or renovation, even when legally authorized, continued to commit violence against churches and Christian-owned properties in various locales.”¹⁸ Given the general insecurity in Egypt and the successful violent attacks against Christians in Cairo and Alexandria by Muslim extremists, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant in her particular circumstances as she would not be free to worship or practice her Christian faith without fear of violent attacks perpetrated with impunity by Muslim extremists.

CONCLUSION

[11] For the foregoing reasons, the panel determines that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts her claim.

(signed) KERRY CUNDAL

January 15, 2019

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

² Exhibit 1.

³Exhibit 2.

⁴Exhibit 2.

⁵ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Ottawa, Canada, March 1993, updated November 1996.

⁶ Exhibits 1 and 2.

⁷ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), June 29, 2018, Item 1.7.

⁸ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 1.7.

⁹Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

¹⁰ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.5.

¹¹ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.2.

¹² Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.4.

¹³ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.5.

¹⁴ Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).

¹⁵ Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.).

¹⁶ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

¹⁷ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

¹⁸ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.