Citation: 2019 RLLR 106
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 1, 2019
Panel: Diane Hitayezu-Fall
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Micheal F Loebach
Country: Uganda
RPD Number: TB8-18931
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000161-000166
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] [XXX] (the claimant) claims to be a citizen of Uganda, and seeks refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1.
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The details of the claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form.2 In short, the claimant alleges persecution based on his political opinion and membership in the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC); an opposition political party in Uganda.
[3] He alleges that he was detained three times due to his political activities. He was released with conditions after each arrest, and one of the conditions was to report back to the police. He decided to flee Uganda after the third detention in [XXX] 2017, when he learned that he had been charged for inciting violence.
[4] He arrived in Canada on [XXX] 2018 from the United States where he had a pending asylum claim.
[5] The claimant alleges that the Ugandan government is still looking for him. He fears his life would be at risk, if he were to return to Uganda, as he still opposes the National Resistance Movement’s programs and its ways of ruling the country.
DETERMINATION
[6] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution in Uganda, based on a Convention ground, political opinion.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[7] The panel is satisfied with the claimant’s personal identity and status as a citizen of Uganda, on a balance of probabilities.
[8] His identity was established based on his oral testimony, a certified copy of his Ugandan passport (a copy of which is on file) seen by a border services officer and other documents from Uganda he provided, which include a birth certificate, academic documents and his marriage certificate.3
Credibility and subjective fear
[9] The claimant’s oral testimony regarding his motives to join the FDC party, his activities and his political opinion was detailed and credible. It was supported by documents that the panel assessed and found trustworthy on a balance of probabilities.4 His knowledge of the Ugandan political sphere was commensurate to his alleged involvement in the FDC.
[10] His testimony included his motives to join the FDC, his role within the FDC, the events that made him leave Uganda, and his current fears.
[11] Despite this credible oral testimony, the panel noticed that the claimant submitted questionable police documents.5 These documents contain spelling errors and at least one cites the wrong section of the applicable law.6 The claimant did not offer any explanation when he was invited to comment on the flaws noted; he simply stated that the release on bond documents were handed to him by the police, and the other documents were given to his lawyer or his wife. The flaws identified on these police documents were not explained to the panel’s satisfaction. The panel finds that they are non-genuine, on a balance of probabilities and were submitted to embellish this claim.
[12] These non-genuine documents were tendered to corroborate the claimant’s allegations that he had been detained, then released on bonds, was required to report back to the police, and that several warrants to arrest were issued against him.
[13] The panel considered the other evidence on file regarding these allegations and found that the negative impact of the submission of these documents that the panel assessed and found non-genuine on a balance of probabilities was overcome by the claimant’s credible oral testimony and other credible evidence tendered to support the alleged dealings with the police. This other evidence included the claimant’s testimony, found to be credible, and a number of letters and affidavits which included an affidavit from the FDC lawyer who handled the claimant’s detention cases and letters from FDC leaders and that
[14] As the claimant arrived in Canada from the US where he had a pending asylum claim, the panel had to assess if leaving the US and abandoning his claim was a sign of lack of subjective fear.
[15] The claimant has provided a number of documents related to his US asylum claim, which indicate that the assessment of his claim was almost completed when he left the US.7 He had received a letter inviting him to clarify some elements of his claim. He explained that having heard about the unfavourable US immigration policies, he got scared to be sent back to Uganda and decided to come to Canada.
[16] Taking into consideration the claimant’s particular circumstances and his explanation for abandoning his claim in the US and based on the understanding of the panel of the current US administration’s attitude and treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers, the panel will not draw any negative inference in regards to the claimant’s abandonment of his US claim.
[17] Having assessed the entire evidence on record, the panel finds that, based on the oral testimony found credible and the documentary evidence found reliable, the claimant has established that he is a member of the opposition and that he left Uganda because of his political opinions. Therefore, the panel concludes that he has established a subjective fear as a person who holds opinions that do not align with the ruling party.
[18] The panel finds that there is a connection between the fear alleged by the claimant and one of the Convention grounds, namely political opinion.
Objective Basis
[19] The claimant’s allegations are supported by the objective documentary evidence contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Uganda.8 This objective documentary evidence reports that people in the claimant’s circumstances, individuals in Uganda who express political views that do not align with the government in power, face persecution. The claimant fears to be arrested if he returns to Uganda. He has charges pending in Uganda, stemming from his past political activities with the FDC when he opposed the Government and the National Resistance Movement (NRM) policies. The objective evidence validates his fear. There is information that Ugandan authorities cite laws protecting national security to restrict criticism of government policies.9 The FDC is reported to be the strongest force in the opposition and represents the biggest challenge to President Museveni.
[20] The United States State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2018 included in the NDP for Uganda notes that significant human rights issues were observed, including unlawful killings and torture by security forces, harsh prison conditions, arbitrary detention, restrictions on freedom of press, expression, assembly and political participation, as well as, official corruption.10 During the period covered by this report the police arrested and detained members of the opposition.
[21] The same report also noted that the Ugandan government was reluctant to investigate, prosecute or punish officials who committed human rights violations, whether in the security services or elsewhere in the government and impunity was a problem. The objective evidence demonstrates that the fact that President Museveni and NRM have been in power since 1986 has resulted in the intertwinement of the ruling party with the state apparatus.11
[22] Having considered this documentary evidence in conjunction with the claimant’s allegations about his political opinion, and the consequences of having strong political opinions that oppose the ruling party’s opinions, the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear and that he faces a serious possibility of persecution based on his political opinion.
STATE PROTECTION
[23] As the agent of the persecution is the State which acts with impunity, as it transpires in the documentary evidence as discussed above, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that State protection would not be available to the claimant.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE
[24] Likewise, as the State is the agent of persecution and is in control of all of its territory, who oppose the ruling party face persecution across Uganda. Therefore, the panel finds that there would be no place throughout the country where the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution due to his political opinion.
[25] Therefore, considering both the testimony of the claimant and the documentary evidence as a whole, the panel finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, that of his political opinion.
CONCLUSION
[26] Based on the totality of the evidence before it, the panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee and therefore accepts the claim.
(signed) Diane Hitayezu-Fall
October 1, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.
2 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim.
3 Exhibit 1; Exhibit 6, pp. 1-7.
4 Exhibit 10, pp. 1-8: Affidavit from the claimant’s wife and other friends; Exhibit 9: Affidavit from his mother and grand-mother, Exhibit 6, pp. 10-11: FDC letters and Exhibit 10, pp. 9-12: Internet pas.
5 Exhibit 6, pp. 12-14 and Exhibit 7, pp. 2-4.
6 Exhibit 6, page 19 (“Release On Bond”).
7 Exhibit 8 (14 pages) and Exhibit 9, pp. 5-6.
8 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Uganda (March 29, 2019).
9 Idem, Tab 2.1
10 Ibidem
11 Exhibit 3, Tab 4.4.