Citation: 2019 RLLR 66
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 26, 2019
Panel: K. Fainbloom
Counsel for the claimant(s): Terry S Guerriero
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: TB8-14474
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-14483, TB8-14467
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000185-000188
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons in the decision, the positive decision for the refugee claims of [XXX], his spouse [XXX] and [XXX]’s mother [XXX].
[2] The citizens are, the claimant’s are citizens of Columbia they claim refugee protection pursuant Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[3] The claimant’s referred jointly pursuant to Rule 55. The details of the claimant’s allegations are set in their basis of claim form narratives and I’m going to briefly summarize that narrative.
[4] [XXX] the principal claimant and his partner [XXX] are a homosexual couple, active in the LGBT community in Columbia. They owned a [XXX] and lived above the business.
[5] On [XXX] 2017 the business was targeted by homophobic graffiti. They went to the police, the policeman’s responses this is what happens when you’re a fagot. On [XXX] 2018 the principal claimant was accosted by a man who put a gun to his waist and told him that he did not want to see the principal claimant or his partner again or he would kill them. He said they knew where he lived. The principal claimant made a denouncement to the attorney general’s office on [XXX] 2018.
[6] On [XXX] 2018 the principal claimant and his partner were accosted by the same man. The principal claimant and his partner decided they would leave Columbia with their mother. They left on [XXX] 2018 and they are afraid to return to Columbia.
[7] Having considered the totality of the evidence before me I find the claimant’s to be Convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA.
[8] The nexus or connection to the definition for the two male claimants is their sexual orientation. The connection for the female claimant is her connection to her son, her connection to this family. So because of that family connection she’s connected to the definition.
[9] With respect to their identities as nationals of Columbia this is established by the documents on file which include copies of their passports.
[10] As to the credibility of the claimant’s allegations I have no concerns. At First they were provide their evidence in what I appeared to be a spontaneous, detailed fashion. The evidence they provided today in oral testimony was consistent with what’s been provided in written form, their allegations are consistent with the situation for sexual minorities n Columbia and finally they’ve done an admiral job of corroborating their allegations.
[11] I’ll refer to some of the documents in Exhibit 4 these would include the two denunciations made by the principal claimant on [XXX] and [XXX]. There’s provided proof of their involvement with the foundation, for both male claimants also a reference in that letter to their receiving death threats. There are a number of corroborative statements made by siblings of the principal claimant as well as the employee hired by the claimant’s to run the [XXX]. There’s a certificate of their involvement in the LGBT community in Canada and there’s also a photograph of the [XXX] and the graffiti that was put on the [XXX] in [XXX] 2017.
[12] So in consideration of all those factors I find on the balance of probabilities their allegations to be true, given that I accept their allegations I find that there’s sufficient objective evidence for me to find that they’re objective, positive reasons why they should fear returning to Columbia.
[13] The documents note that in that the mistreatment of sexual minorities in Columbia has actually worsened significantly in recent years. The documents contained in Exhibit 3 including the Item at 6.1 and 6.5 refer to LGBTI person’s being subjected to acts of violence aimed at eliminating their sexual orientation and that they face sexual violence, forced displacement as well as homicide.
[14] The document at 6.5 notes that reports of violence and discrimination against Columbia’s LGBT community have been steadily increasing in recent years and notes that discrimination is prevalent throughout Columbia and society even prevalent in high level Columbian politicians.
[15] The documents still has been particularly extreme in Caribbean coastal regions where LGBTU rights, defenders have received death threats in which they have been declared military targets by various armed groups. At in the document provided by counsel Exhibit 4 the last Item at Page 49 makes the following statement; Columbia’s made no progress in stopping killing of lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people as new research showed more than one hundred were killed last year despite the overall fall in the murder rate.
[16] So in consideration of those conditions I find that there’s an objective basis to their fear of returning to Columbia.
[17] I’ve considered the issue of whether adequate state protection would be provided, I find in this situation it is not been provided and would not be reasonably expected to be provided should they return.
[18] Firstly I would note the country conditions as just described the government is has not been effectively providing protection to sexual minorities that are subject to threats and violence. I would note that while the Columbian state has been putting some effort into improving state protection particularly since the peace accord with FARC the state’s ability to actually provide protection is highly limited. This is partly due to lack of presence and capacity; it’s partly due to issues of corruption as there’s information of corruption and complicity by many local, regional authorities.
[19] The documents also note that paramilitary groups are known to infiltrate official institutions and forge alliances with public servants. Notwithstanding these the country conditions as I’ve just described the subjective experience of this couple is that they have gone to the authorities the first time they went they were insulted, when they called the authorities for assistance there was no answer and times they went to make denunciations to the attorney general’s office they were not given adequate protection.
[20] So I find that adequate protection would not be available to these claimants. I find the issue I’ve considered is whether there might be a viable internal flight alternative available. I find that there would not be. I think the [XXX] the principal claimant’s opinion with respect to the relocation within Columbia not being feasible is reasonable and supported by the documents before me.
[21] The more you get into rural areas of smaller cities you’re dealing with more (inaudible) prevalence of violence and threats against sexual minorities.
[22] So I find that this couple would suffer persecution, the three claimants’ would suffer persecution anywhere in the country and that therefore there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimants.
[23] In consideration of the totality of the evidence before me and the factors I’ve just reviewed I find the claimant’s to be Convention refugees. The division therefore accepts your claims.
[24] CLAIMANT: Thank you.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-