Categories
All Countries Venezuela

2019 RLLR 107

Citation: 2019 RLLR 107
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 7, 2019
Panel: Robert Bafaro
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Yaritza Martinez
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TB8-25225
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-25277, TB8-03615
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000167-000171


[1]       MEMBER: I’ve had a chance to carefully review all of the evidence before me, to carefully consider the testimony of the principal claimant, XXXX, the testimony of his daughter XXXX. I’ve had a chance to examine all of the supporting documents that have been provided as well as the country documents regarding the human rights situation in Venezuela at the present time, as reflected in the National Documentation Package on Venezuela from May 2018.

[2]       I’ve decided to accept these refugee claims and I’m now going to deliver my oral reasons from the bench.

[3]       The claimants, [XXX] and [XXX], are claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and s. 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4]       With respect to the issue of their identities, I’m satisfied that they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that they are who they claim to be and that they are citizens of Venezuela. have in evidence before me, in Exhibit 1, certified true copies of their Venezuelan passports.

[5]       The other important issue that I have to assess in all refugee claims is the issue of credibility. I have to be satisfied that the testimony and evidence of the claimants, as it relates to the most central, most important, aspects of their refugee claims, is credible.

[6]       Now, in refugee law in Canada, there’s a presumption. The presumption is that everything that a claimant says under oath is true, unless there’s evidence, persuasive evidence, to the contrary. I find that there is no persuasive evidence to the contrary.

[7]       The narratives of the principal claimant, [XXX], and his daughter, [XXX], are very detailed. I’m not going to repeat everything that’s in their basis of claim forms. Suffice it to say that they are both alleging a fear of persecution in the country on the grounds of their political opinion, both their actual political opinion and their perceived or imputed political opinion, by virtue of the fact that they are members, active members, of an opposition party called COPEI (ph.). They are alleging that they fear persecution in the country also because they were actively involved in protesting, demonstrating and criticising the government – the Chavez government, the current government of Maduro – by attending demonstrations, protests, holding placards, distributing flyers, condemning the government, in the hopes of restoring some kind of democracy. As the principal claimant mentioned, he was providing logistical support, food, water, but he was also actively involved holding placards, distributing anti-government literature and flyers to demonstrators. The principal claimant has been political active for many, many years. His daughter, [XXX], started in – became a member of the party in 2007 and then she continued right up until 2014 and then the threats started. And the threats continued right up until the time she left the country for the very last time. So, that is a synopsis or a brief encapsulation of the key elements that form the basis for these refugee claims.

[8]       I already made some comments about credibility. And I heard testimony from the principal claimant. I heard testimony from [XXX], his daughter. And first want to make some comments about the principal claimant.

[9]       He gave his testimony in a very straightforward manner. His answers were spontaneous. They were consistent with the objective country information. They were consistent with the information provided in his basis of claim form. There were no major contradictions or inconsistencies or discrepancies between his testimony and other evidence which was before me.

[10]     Likewise, his daughter [XXX] also testified in a straightforward manner. Her answers were spontaneous. Her answers were generally consistent with the very detailed information she provided in her basis of claim form narrative and her testimony was consistent with, generally speaking, with the objective country information contained in the National Documentation Package on Venezuela.

[11]     And I wanted to make one comment about [XXX] and her testimony. There was one aspect of her testimony that I did have some difficulty with. However, I think she – however, I find that she did provide a reasonable explanation.  Initially I didn’t find it entirely – it didn’t make a lot of sense to me and it didn’t seem to be plausible that despite these continuing threats from the Venezuelan government that she would keep leaving the country and re-availing herself of the country. In other words, it didn’t sound plausible to me that someone who’s fearing persecution would leave the country of persecution, go abroad to places like Argentina, United States, Canada and not ask for protection.

[12]     However, I find that she provide a reasonable explanation. And the explanation is this. Those other times that she went out of the country, it was a kind of a temporary measure. She really had no intention at that time to claim asylum. She wanted to finish her education. And, more importantly, she didn’t really feel at that time that the threats were as serious as they became later.

[13]     Now, a threat is a threat. It’s serious. However, it wasn’t until later, when she returned from Canada and went back to Venezuela and returned to Margarita Island, that things became a lot worse. It was when she went back that she was kidnapped, she was beaten up, she was threatened with rape. And they clearly perceived her to be someone that was disloyal to the government, an opponent of the government, especially since she had actually done an internship within the government. And it’s people that work for the government especially that the government expects loyalty from them, expects them to be patriotic. And in her case, she wasn’t. She didn’t want to go along with what the government was trying to pressure her to do, which was to get this patriotic identity card under Chavez to, you know, vote for the government and support their policy. She refused to do that and, in fact, did the opposite. She continued to remain active in an opposition political party and attended protests that were denouncing the government.

[14]     So, I think when you look at it that way, it actually sounds entirely reasonable and plausible that initially she didn’t claim asylum or ask for protection in those countries, but once she was actually kidnapped and physically assaulted at gun point and then threatened with rape, that that was basically the final straw. And it’s at that point in time that she came to the realisation that this situation was really serious and that it was out of control and that things were not going to get better. And it’s precisely around that time that she left and then her parents followed her to Canada because the threats were continuing.

[15]     So, that having been said, I find in light of all of the evidence that both the principal claimant, [XXX], and his daughter [XXX] were in fact very credible witnesses.

[16]     Now, turning to the objective evidence – and the objective evidence is not in dispute. It’s we – we know what’s going on in Venezuela. The objective documents speak very clearly about what’s going on in Venezuela, that if you’re a political activist, you’re an opponent of the government, you’re criticising their policies openly at demonstrations, protests, you face serious problems, including arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, extra-judicial killings. The situation has really spiralled out of control and the Maduro government has consolidated its power, giving itself and its own – members of its own party the ultimate power over and above the power that the National Assembly once used to have.

[17]     So, I’m now going to refer to some of the objective documents that talk about the situation in Venezuela.

[18]     Item 2.3 in the National Documentation Package, which in evidence today as Exhibit 5, indicates – and it’s a report from Human Rights Watch. It indicates that brutal repression of political protest in Venezuela, the erosion of human rights, state-sponsored censorship, intimidation of critics, and – it notes that people face torture and abuse in custody and that people are discriminated against because of their criticism of the government.

[19]     Item 4.3 notes that the political prisoners have been tortured in Venezuela and the government has limited human rights, including personal freedom of integrity and freedom of expression.

[20]     Item 4.14 notes that,

“Protests have been met with outright prohibition, roadblocks … repressive policing, as well as deployment of armed civilians who have beaten and shot at demonstrators.”

[21]     The colectivos are a violent paramilitary wing of the ruling socialist party and they are responsible for much of this political persecution.

[22]     As indicated in Item 4.16, a faction of the colectivos known as the Tupamaros are also known for dealing ruthlessly with political opponents through fierce and deadly intimidation and assault by firearm, including the murder of protesters.

[23]     Based on the evidence before me, I find that the claimants face more than mere possibility of persecution in Venezuela as opponents of the Maduro rĂ©gime.

[24]     I find that your claims are objectively well-founded. The totality of the country documentation supports your allegations.

[25]     On a balance of probabilities and in light of your particular circumstances, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Venezuelan State would be unwilling to provide political opponents with protection. Indeed, the agent of persecution that you fear in Venezuela is the government itself. And the documentary evidence at Exhibit 5 corroborates this.

[26]     I just wanted to back up one minute and just mention that another reason why I found the claimants’ testimony to be credible is that it was supported by objective documentation. And this is found at Exhibit 9. The claimants provided supporting documents that corroborate central aspects of their refugee claim. And those are found at – beginning at page 22, it talks about the internship of the female claimant, [XXX]. There’s another document, page 24, that corroborates the fact that she had an internship with the government. We’ve got a letter, page 27, that corroborates that [XXX] was a member of the COPEI opposition political party. And likewise we have a document, at page 30, that corroborates the membership of [XXX] in the COPEI opposition party and it corroborates that – and both of these letters corroborate that both [XXX] and [XXX] were not just members, or card-carrying members; they were activists. They were actively involved in opposing the Maduro government. They were actively involved in protests against the government.

[27]     There’s also a witness statement at page 33 that provides corroboration about an incident that happened at the claimants’ home. Sorry, there’s a – let me – I stand corrected. There’s a witness statement that says that since they have left the country, there continues to be unusual activity surrounding their home and that – suspicious activities in their neighbourhood, involving people going around asking, trying to find out where the [XXX] family has gone to.

[28]     And there’s also a medical report, at page 36, which corroborates an incident in June of 2017 involving [XXX], where she sustained multiple contusions, and this was around the time that she was kidnapped, beaten brutally and threatened with rape.

[29]     So, I find that the documentary evidence is both clear and convincing and that it rebuts the presumption of State protection in your particular circumstances.

[30]     I’ve also considered whether there’s an internal flight alternative for you, as members of one family, anywhere in the country, in Venezuela. However, on the evidence before me, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution for all of you throughout the country in your particular circumstances. Again, the documentary evidence at Exhibit 5 indicates that persecution of political opponents occurs throughout the country.

[31]     For the foregoing reasons and having considered all the evidence before me, I conclude that you all face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of your both imputed and actual political opinions, should you return to Venezuela.

[32]     According, I am accepting your refugee claims and find you to be Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DECISION CONCLUDED