Citation: 2019 RLLR 97
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 4, 2019
Panel: S. Seevaratnam
Counsel for the claimant(s): Paul VanderVennen
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TB8-04005
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000096-000106
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The claimant, [XXX], claims to be a citizen of Ethiopia and he is claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimant alleges that he fears returning to Ethiopia because of his perceived political opinion in opposition of the Ethiopian regime, due to his ethnicity as a member of the Oromo tribe.
[3] The claimant testified that his father is a prominent advocate for the equality and freedom of the Oromo people.2 He is an active member and participant in the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC).3
[4] On October 8, 2017, the claimant participated in the Irecha Festival at Gefersa dam.4 The claimant testified that he and his friends enjoyed the celebrations until some young people turned the event into an anti-government protest. This resulted in an intervention by the anti-riot members of the federal police. The claimant and his friends quickly dispersed.5
[5] The claimant testified that on October 9, 2017, around 7:00 a.m. he was awoken by his father who indicated that the police officers were waiting for him outside their family home. The claimant stated that his father advised him to be co-operative since they could become aggressive. The claimant explained that he was handcuffed and taken to Kolfe Keranyo sub-city police station where he was interrogated and accused of participating in the Oromo unrest.6 The claimant denied participating in the public protest as a consequence he was severely beaten with a rubber hose and threatened to confess.7
[6] The claimant testified that he was detained for five days and finally released on bail that was posted by his mother on [XXX], 2017. He was warned not to leave Addis Ababa and not to participate in any public gathering or meetings.8 He was told not to even attend church.9
[7] The claimant believes that there is no protection for the Oromo people in Ethiopia since political opposition is not tolerated. He fears re-arrest and torture since the security forces suspect him to be a political opponent of the government of Ethiopia. Thus, the claimant fled to Canada in search of safety.
[8] During his absence from Ethiopia, the claimant has been informed by his father that the police have attended at their family home, in search of the claimant.10
DETERMINATION
[9] The panel finds the claimant to be a Convention refugee. The panel’s reasons are as follows.
IDENTITY
[10] The claimant submitted a copy of his passport issued by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which was certified to be a true copy by an Immigration Officer on January 26, 2018.11
[11] The claimant also provided a copy of his birth certificate,12 his Kebele identity which identifies his ethnicity as Oromo,13 his father’s membership card14 and membership dues paid with Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC).15 The panel was provided with the original identity documents for examination in advance of the hearing, which was helpful in assessing identity.
[12] The panel is satisfied that the claimant is a citizen of Ethiopia and that he is a member of the Oromo community.
CREDIBILITY
[13] The panel is guided by the leading jurisprudence on the issue of credibility. Maldonado stands for the principle that when a claimant “swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true, unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness.”16
[14] The claimant responded to all questions clearly and directly. He was straightforward. His sworn viva voce evidence was consistent with his Basis of Claim Form (BOC),17 the police statement,18 the bail receipt,19 and witness letters,20 as well as the documentary evidence.21
[15] The panel was provided with the original for each of the items in the claimant’s documents,22 in advance of the hearing.
[16] The panel finds the claimant to be a credible and trustworthy witness. Accordingly, he has established his subjective fear of persecution.
WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION
[17] The claimant participated in a celebration at Gefersa dam, which was turned into a public protest by a few young people. This resulted in the claimant being falsely accused of participating in activities against the government. Consequently, the claimant was arrested, interrogated, detained, and tortured by the security forces in Ethiopia.
[18] The police report dated October 13, 2017, accuses the claimant of “causing public unrest on the Gefersa Irrecha festival.”23 The police report corroborates the claimant’s arrest and detention. Furthermore, the bail money receipt issued by the Kolfe Keranyo police department confirms the claimant’s release upon payment of bail.24
[19] Current and reliable media reports submitted by counsel for the claimant indicates that “67 people were killed in Ethiopia’s Oromia sate this week as protests against Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed morphed into ethnic clashes.”25 The report further states that according to Amnesty International, “since Abiy took office, there have been several waves of mass arrests of people in Oromiya perceived to be opposed to the government. Detainees were not charged or taken to court…”26 This is similar to the predicament faced by the claimant when he was in Ethiopia.
[20] Furthermore, a press statement by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) on the human rights situation in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia finds that:27
The Commission is gravely concerned by the escalation of protests which have been taking place in the Oromia region since the 23rd October 2019. Those protests have spiraled into clashes amongst civilians and between civilians and security forces, and they are increasingly being fanned by ethnic and religious undercurrents, with groups being mobilized to attack minority ethnic communities and churches.
[21] In addition, the ACHPR reminds the Ethiopian government that:28
… [I]t is obligated to take measures for restoring peace and reassuring the country. It should ensure that its security forces take appropriate measures to protect civilians, and that they do not use indiscriminate force in this regard. It should investigate arising human rights violations, prosecute perpetrators and provide effective remedies to victims.
[22] The panel has carefully reviewed reputable and reliable sources in assessing the objective basis of this claim. According to the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) 2018 Country Report for Ethiopia:29
According to the constitution, individuals, and groups who want to protest only need to inform the government, not seek permission. The government often declines permits for protest that are not pro-government. Whenever protests go ahead without permits, the government uses violent means and coercive tactics to crack down on protestors. During the Oromo and Amhara protests, security forces allegedly killed well over 1,000 people, with the government admitting the death of over 500 people.
The government has increasingly curtailed the freedom of expression and organization of politicians, journalists, NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and human rights organization, thus making Ethiopia a de facto dictatorship.
[23] According to a reputable report by Freedom House titled “Freedom of the Press 2017: Ethiopia Profile”:30
Ethiopia’s media are dominated by state-owned broadcasters and government oriented newspapers. Many private newspapers, which generally have low circulation, report that officials attempt to control content through article placement requests and telephone calls to editors about stories that are critical of the government. Reporters who cover controversial topics risk being arrested or dismissed from their jobs.
…
Censorship and self-censorship are routinely practiced. Government control of the country’s primary printing press allows for prepublication censorship of newspapers. The risk of job loss, harassment, prosecution, and arbitrary arrest encourage journalists to self-censor.
[24] Another Freedom House report for 2018 Ethiopian country conditions indicates that “[t]he Ethiopian government maintains, and exercises, the ability to censor critical or opposition websites.”31 The report further states that that “opposition members in Ethiopia and the diaspora have accused the government of tapping their phones or monitoring their electronic communications.”32
[25] The United States Department of State’s (DOS) “Ethiopia 2018 Human Rights Report” indicates the following:33
Human rights issues included reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by security forces and between citizens; forced disappearances by some government forces; torture; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention by security forces; political prisoners; interference with privacy; censorship and site blocking; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, such as overly restrictive nongovernmental organization laws; and significant restrictions on freedom of movement …
[26] The DOS report further states that:34
There were numerous reports that the government and its representatives committed arbitrary and unlawful killings. Security forces used excessive force against civilians.
A July 31 report from the independent nongovernmental organization (NGO) Human Rights Council (HRCO) that documented field investigations in 26 districts across seven zones in the Oromia and Somali Regions found that federal and regional security forces, as well as mobs of local youth, killed 733 citizens between January 2017 and January 2018.
[27] According to a Freedom House report, “Ethiopia is an authoritarian state ruled by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which has been in power since 1991 and currently holds every seat in Parliament.”35 The report further states that, “[o]pponents of the EPDRF find it nearly impossible to operate inside Ethiopia. Authorities frequently invoke antiterrorism legislation against dissenters.”36
[28] Moreover, this report indicates the following:37
Intense government pressure opposition parties from winning political representation through elections. There are no opposition members in the national parliament, nor in regional parliaments… Opposition party members were intimidated, detained, beaten, and arrested ahead of the polls.
…
The authoritarian one-party system in Ethiopia largely excludes the public from any genuine and autonomous political participation.
[29] In its report titled “Ethiopia: Political situation and treatment of opposition,” the Danish Immigration Service states that:38
…[M]embers of the diaspora community were, ‘without doubt’ monitored closely by the government, wherever they might reside. This is, according to the interlocutor, no secret…
The editor noted that if Ethiopians participate in demonstrations against the Ethiopian regime in a foreign country, be it in Europe or in the USA, would be video-taped to document their activity. This would also be the case if members of the diaspora had gotten foreign nationality. Thus they would fear that they were to return to Ethiopia then something might happen to them upon return. As examples of what might occur, Mr. Giorgis mentioned that they could run the risk of being detained in the airport or jailed …
[30] According to an EU representative, under the current regime “10,000 of political prisoners had been released, others were still arrested by the police on political grounds.”39
[31] In September 2018, the police commissioner of Addis Ababa indicated that nearly “3,000 youths were arrested in the capital Addis Ababa over the weekend, and that 174 would be charged and 1,200 others would be detained at the Tolay Military Camp for a ‘rehabilitation education.”‘40 In response, Amnesty International stated that “[w]hile the Ethiopian authorities have in recent months made a commendable attempt to empty the country’s prisons of arbitrary detainees, they must not fill them up by arbitrarily arresting and detaining more people without charge.”41
[32] Based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations, the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia, by reason of the claimant’s ethnicity as Oromo and his perceived political opinion.
STATE PROTECTION
[33] There is a presumption that except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, the state is capable of protecting its citizens.42 To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens.43
[34] According to the 2018 Political Transformation Index Country Report for Ethiopia, “[t]he Ethiopian judiciary lacks both a structural and functional independence.”44
[35] The DOS report states that “[c]orruption, especially the solicitation of bribes, including police and judicial corruption, remained a problem.”45 The report further finds that the “law provides criminal penalties for conviction of corruption. The government did not implement effectively or comprehensively.”46 Moreover, the DOS report indicates that human rights issues have diminished, although “[t]he government at times did not take steps to prosecute officials who committed human rights abuses, resulting in impunity for violators.”47
[36] The 2019 Human Rights Watch report for Ethiopia indicates that:48
Government officials often dismissed allegations of torture, contrary to credible evidence…
…
The government did not take any steps to carry out investigations into the killings [of] over 1,000 protesters by security forces during wide spread protests in 2015 and 2016 in Oromia and other regions…
[37] The claimant was arrested, detained and tortured by the Ethiopian security forces in Addis Ababa on [XXX], 2017.49 The claimant fears that he would be arrested, detained, and mistreated upon his return to Ethiopia. Given his previous arrest, the claimant would be perceived to be an opponent of the state, if he were to return to Ethiopia today.
[38] The National Documentation Package,50 and the documents submitted by the claimant51 make clear that the state is the agent of persecution and, in these particular circumstances, is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant.
[39] Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimant has met the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)
[40] The Federal Court of Appeal established a two-part test for assessing an IFA in Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu:
(1) As per Rasaratnam, “the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists”52 and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA.
(2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.53
[41] The claimant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that he would be persecuted on a Convention ground, or subject personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in all of Ethiopia.
[42] It is evident that the Ethiopian security forces operate with impunity throughout the country. The documentary evidence corroborates the claimant’s testimony that there is no state protection available to him, since the state security forces are his agent of persecution. As such, there is no safety for the claimant anywhere within Ethiopia.
CONCLUSION
[43] For the above-mentioned reasons, the panel finds [XXX] to be a Convention refugee. The claimant has established that there is a reasonable chance of persecution, if he were to return to his country of nationality, Ethiopia, today.
(signed) S. Seevaratnam
December 4, 2019
1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC), response to q.2(a), Narrative, line 3, received February 16, 2018.
3 Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, pp.9-13, received November 6, 2019.
4 Exhibit 2, BOC, Narrative, line 3, received February 16, 2018.
5 Ibid., line 3-13.
6 Ibid., lines 15-22.
7 Ibid., lines 28-30.
8 Ibid., lines 32-35.
9 Ibid., line 35.
10 Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, p.l, lines 43-44, received November 6, 2019.
11 Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport, received February 16, 2018.
12 Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, p.2, received November 6, 2019.
13 Ibid., pp.3-4.
14 Ibid., p.9.
15 Ibid., pp.10-13.
16 Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979. Reported: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34. (F.C.A.), at para 5.
17 Exhibit 2, BOC, received February 16, 2018.
18 Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, pp.5-6, received November 6, 2019.
19 Ibid., pp.7-8.
20 Ibid., pp.15-25.
21 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019); Exhibit 7, Country Documents received November 6, 2019.
22 Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Disclosure, received November 6, 2019.
23 Ibid., pp.5-6.
24 Ibid., pp.7-8.
25 Exhibit 7, Country Documents, p.12, received November 6, 2019.
26 Ibid., p.13.
27 Ibid., p.15.
28 Ibid., p.16.
29 Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019), item 4.9, s.2.
30 Ibid., item 11.1, Political Environment.
31 Ibid, item 2.4, s.D1.
32 Ibid., s.D4.
33 Ibid., item 2.1, Executive Summary.
34 Ibid., s.1(a).
35 Ibid., item 2.4, Overview.
36 Ibid., s.B1.
37 Ibid., s.B2 & B3.
38 Ibid, item 4.4, paras 140-141.
39 Ibid., s.4.1.
40 Ibid., item 2.7.
41 Ibid.
42 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
43 Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Letourneau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), at para 38.
44 Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019), item 4.9, s.3.
45 Ibid., item 2.1, s.4 – Corruption.
46 Ibid., s.4.
47 Ibid., Executive Summary.
48 Ibid., item 2.3, Impunity, Torture, and Arbitrary Detention.
49 Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, pp.5-6, received November 6, 2019.
50 Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019).
51 Exhibit 7, Country Documents, received November 6, 2019.
52 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] I F.C. 706 (C.A.), at para 9.
53 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.).