Categories
All Countries Bangladesh

2019 RLLR 64

Citation: 2019 RLLR 64
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2019
Panel: S. Shaw
Counsel for the claimant(s): Kieran Verboven
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TB8-12509
RPD Associated Number(s): TB8-12520, TB8-12546, TB8-12547
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000174-000179


[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision of the refugee protection claim made by the Principal Claimant, [XXX], File Number TB8-12509; as well as the Associate Claimant [XXX], TB8-12520; and the two Minor Claimants, [XXX], File Number TB8-12546; and Minor Claimant, [XXX], TB8-12547.

[2]       The Panel has considered the testimony and other evidence provided in this case, and renders the following oral decision:

[3]       The above-mentioned Claimants are citizens of Bangladesh and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These four claims have been jointly heard, as they were joined pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. The Principal Claimant was named as the Designated Representatives for the two Minor Claimants.

[4]       The Panel has determined that these Claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh, based on the Convention grounds of perceived political opinion, specifically, as they are employees as [XXX] and [XXX] in their country. The female Claimant, or this Principal Claimant is the [XXX] in her country, while the associate Claimant [XXX] and [XXX] and [XXX] her [XXX]. The female Claimant, as the Principal Claimant, is also a [XXX] throughout her country, and their actions are viewed as perceived anti-government because of their employment and their roles. The two Minor Claimants’ persecution is based on their membership in a particular social group, specifically, as part of the adult Claimants’ families.

[5]       With regard to the allegations, the details of this case are set out in the Claimants’ Basis of Claim forms found in Exhibit 2, 3, 4 and 5, and were further supplemented by the adult Claimants’ testimonies and supporting documentary evidence.

[6]       In summary, the Claimants fear persecution in Bangladesh at the hands of the [XXX] of the [XXX], herein called [XXX], and specifically, the [XXX] name, Mr. [XXX]. They also fear [XXX] and members of the Awami League, as well as the police. [XXX] is alleged to have strong links to the ruling Awami League Party, and [XXX] is a [XXX] with the Awami League.

[7]       The Principal Claimant alleges that she and her husband are targeted by [XXX] and [XXX] because of [XXX] in the Bangladeshi [XXX] and because [XXX] wanted her to restrict her [XXX] only to [XXX], and that he also wanted her husband to [XXX]. Therefore, their refusal to do so was seen as being anti-government, perceivably, and against the Awami League. Hence their fears are based on a perceived political opinion, as [XXX], and in the [XXX], either in [XXX] or as [XXX].

[8]       With regard to analysis, the Panel considered all of the evidence, including the oral testimony, the supporting personal documents, and the country conditions, which has been entered exhibit — as exhibits. The Panel has also considered the further allegations in detail, specifically, that the Claimants’ fears occurred between [XXX] 2018 and [XXX] 2018, and started in [XXX] 2018 when [XXX] met with the adult Claimant and expressed his request that they work for him at his [XXX] – [XXX] instead of working at [XXX]. As the adult Claimants’ refused this offer, they were subsequently threatened by phone calls from [XXX], a current Awami League member, and others, and also asked for money by way of extortion so that they could fund the Awami League coffers.

[9]       The main incident that led to the adult Claimants’ fears occurred on [XXX], 2018 when they were returning home at night and they were attacked by four Awami League associates of [XXX]. They were pistol whipped and — with rods and questioned again as to why they refused to join the [XXX], as was asked of them by the [XXX], [XXX]. Both Claimants were hospitalized as a result of this incident and they were hospitalized for three days. The adult Claimants also indicated and testified that they did report these incidents, both the [XXX], 2018 incident, as well as the [XXX], 2018 incident. They were both reported to the police, and they filed general diaries and police complaints, but they did not have much success.

[10]     On [XXX], 2018, the Claimants relocated their family to their friend’s home in [XXX], [XXX] hours away, and two weeks later, their young son, the Minor — one of the Minor Claimants was subsequently kidnapped on [XXX], 2018 while they stayed in [XXX]. He was returned the next day, on [XXX], 2018, and again, the Principal Claimant and the Associate Claimant were told not to report this incident to the police and they were again asked on the phone about why they have refused to sign the contract and join [XXX]. The adult Claimants and the Minor Claimants soon left Bangladesh on [XXX], 2018 bound for Canada.

[11]     So with regards to analysis. Firstly, the Panel is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the Claimants’ personal identities as citizens of Bangladesh has been established by testimony and supporting documents filed. Specifically, documents included the certified true copies of the Claimants’ passports filed in Exhibit 1, which were seized by immigration officials. The Panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents.

[12]     With regard to credibility, credibility is an issue to be considered in all claims before the Immigration and Refugee Board. The Claimants must establish a well-founded fear of persecution by presenting credible and trustworthy evidence. When a Claimant affirms that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their truthfulness.

[13]     In this case, after review, the Panel finds that the adult Claimants’ oral testimonies were candid, straightforward, and credible. The Principal Claimant was tearful at times during her testimony; however, her answers were still spontaneous and in detail.

[14]     With regards to supporting documents, Exhibit 11, specifically, is a package of personal documents submitted by counsel. These corroborating documents included business license, income tax certificates, the [XXX] and [XXX] ID cards, as well as the two police complaint reports filed on [XXX], 2018 and [XXX], 2018, and hospital reports of their — and discharge certificates, all filed in Exhibit 11. There were also newspaper articles filed as part of the evidence. These cumulative documents corroborated the adult Claimants’ testimonies and the BOC narratives, and on a balance of probabilities, support the core elements of the allegations.

[15]     Therefore, after review of the cumulative nature of the testimony and documentary evidence submitted, the Panel is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Claimants’ testimonies and allegations are believable and credible. The Panel is satisfied that they would face persecution based on the previously-stated determination, that being based on a Convention ground of perceived political opinion, specifically, as they are viewed as anti-government because of their — anti­ government and anti-Awami League because of their employment as [XXX] and [XXX] and [XXX] and in [XXX] in their country, as well as the two Minor Claimants’ persecution being based on that of membership in a particular social group, specifically, as part of the adult Claimants’ family.

[15]     The Panel is satisfied that their persecution is also because they refused to comply with [XXX]’s request that they join [XXX], and — which is linked to the Awami League and the government as it tends to promote and only advertise news of the Awami League and the government.

[16]     With regard to the objective basis of this claim, the Panel finds that these Claimants’ evidence as a whole is generally consistent with the objective documentary evidence and corroborated by the country conditions as noted in the National Documentation Package listed in Exhibit 6, and also, in counsel’s disclosure package listed in Exhibit 8, 9, and 10. The country conditions document -­ specifically demonstrates similarly situated circumstances in Items 1.10, 1.4, 1.14, and 1.9 of the National Documentation Package for this country. In particular, the evidence indicates in Items 1.4 and 1 .14 that although the Constitution provides for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, however, some critics of the government or — including journalists and publicists and publishers and social media users are subject to surveillance, arrests, harassment, and intimidation, and at times have had their media accreditation withdrawn following politically motivated allegations against them. Also, Item 1.10 of the NDP specifically speaks to the Amnesty International report that indicates bloggers, and by extension, media and television and personnel are threatened in person and they, themselves, or their family members have also received threatening phone calls at their home.

[17]     The Panel is therefore satisfied on a balance of probabilities that these Claimants’ subjective fears are objectively well-founded, specifically, when assessed in the context of the country conditions. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution.

[18]     With regards to state protection, in all refugee protection claims, the Panel must determine if state protection is available. In other words, the Panel must consider whether or not these particular Claimants could live safely in another part of Bangladesh. In making determination on this, the Panel considered the answers provided by the Claimants, which stated the following, and the Panel also considered the information provided in their Basis of Claim forms and the objective documentary evidence submitted and the country conditions of this country.

[19]     With regards to testimony, the Panel is satisfied that the Claimants have requested police assistance on two occasions by filing police complaints, as noted previously, and that they later returned to the police station on [XXX], 2018 to inquire about the status of their police complaint. They felt that the police were not proactive in providing answers to their complaint, but instead that the police was just passing the information along to them that they were going to look into the case but with no real avail.

[20]     With regards to the country conditions, Items 1.10, 1.17, and 1.4 — 1.9 also speak to the country conditions and state protection, specifically, in that law enforcement agencies tend to be aligned with the ruling party, and political affiliation is a motive for arrest and criminal persecution, and further, that the effectiveness of the criminal justice system is undermined by poor infrastructure and endemic corruption. Item 1.17, the U.S. State Department report, notes that capacity issues, corruption, and politicization have weakened the ability of the judiciary to deliver effective justice, and that public distrust of police and security services deter many Bangladeshi’s from approaching the police for assistance or to report criminal incidents. Item 1.9 speaks to a culture of police corruption that continues, and that security forces commit serious abuses with impunity and that the judiciary is subject to bribery, interference, and political pressure. And also, if a person fear is of persecution or serious harm at the hands of the state, or the ruling party, they, that person, will not be able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities.

[21]     Therefore, based on the Claimants’ personal circumstances as well as the objective country conditions documentation, the Panel finds that these Claimants have rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection. Also, the Claimants have demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that they have attempted to seek state protection; however, it was not adequately forthcoming. The Panel notes that there is clear and convincing evidence that the reasons given for lack of state protection is adequate, as the agents of persecution are affiliated with the current ruling party, and includes the Awami League and its members, who have national reach and influence throughout the country.

[22]     With regards to internal relocation, in reaching a decision the Panel must also consider whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for these Claimants, and whether they can live safely in another part of the country. To make this determination, the Panel did question the Claimants about possible cities of internal relocation, and also reviewed the country conditions in the documentary evidence submitted.

[23]     The Panel notes that on [XXX], 2018, these Claimants relocated from Dhaka to their friends’ home in [XXX], approximately [XXX] kilometers away. They were, however, found one week later in [XXX] by [XXX]’s associates and one of the Minor Claimants was kidnapped on [XXX], 2018 while they stayed in [XXX]. After the Minor Claimant’s return, the Associate Claimant was told that she cannot hide from her persecutors and that she cannot hide within the rest of the country and that she was again asked to join the [XXX] at that time. The Claimants fled Bangladesh two days after the Minor Claimant’s kidnapping.

[24]     In addition, the Panel considered the testimony of the Principal Claimant, that she is a [XXX] throughout her country, as she has been a [XXX] since 1990 and that [XXX], [XXX] throughout the entire country of Bangladesh. So the Panel accepts that if she is to relocate anywhere, she would be [XXX] within the country, which then means by extension she would be [XXX] and found by her perpetrators, and by extension, her husband’s perpetrators as well.  The Claimants also testified that they cannot return to Bangladesh because [XXX]’s associates have come looking for them in [XXX] since their departure, and more recently, their house in Bangladesh has been seized by the Awami League.

[25]     With regards to country conditions, the Panel is satisfied that the same objective evidence reviewed prior but addressing country conditions and state protection, is also relevant to the country conditions relating to internal relocations. The Panel has considered the specific profile of these Claimants as [XXX] and [XXX], and specifically, that the Principal Claimant is [XXX], so it would be unreasonable for them to relocate to another part of Bangladesh without being found. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that these Claimants would face persecution throughout the country of Bangladesh, and as such, the Panel accepts that no viable internal flight alternative is available to these Claimants that is safe and reasonable given their particular circumstances.

[26]     In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence and the previously mentioned analysis, the Panel finds that these Claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution for the reasons already stated. The Claimants have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution if they returned to Bangladesh based on the previously-stated determination of perceived political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Therefore, this Panel concludes that these Claimants are Convention refugees as defined by section 96 of the Immigration and Protection — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and as such, the Panel accepts this claim for refugee protection in Canada.

[27]     And that brings me to the end of the decision, and its reasons. This hearing is now concluded.

– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –