Citation: 2020 RLLR 13
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 18, 2020
Panel: F. Mortazavi
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Vino Shanmuganathan
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TB8-00045
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000090-000096
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] [XXX], the claimant, is a citizen of Venezuela. She is claiming refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the IRPA).1
NEXUS
[2] The claim is based on political opinion, namely, political dissident.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimant’s allegations are detailed in her Basis of Claim Form (BOC) narrative,2 and amended narratives.3
[4] In summary, she alleged that she is a registered member of the Primera Justicia Party (PJC) of Venezuela. She had attended protest against the government of Nicolas Maduro calling for social and financial reforms.
[5] The claimant stated that the PJC believed in democracy, social justice, solidarity, the rescue of human dignity, equal opportunities, and progress. At the time, the claimant supported Juan Pablo Guanipa for a gubernatorial election, who later became the first vice president of the National Assembly.
[6] The claimant alleged that on [XXX], 2017, she was arrested, along with other protesters at a peaceful protest, detained, and interrogated by the Bolivarian National Police. Subsequently, she was further interrogated in [XXX] 2017, and threatened to pay extortion money to have her case dropped.
[7] On [XXX], 2017, the claimant, who was in possession of a visitor visa for Canada, fled the country alone, while her husband remained behind, as he did not have a valid Canadian visitors visa. At a later date, unable to obtain a Canadian visa, her husband, who was also harassed, threatened, and subjected to extortion by the authorities after obtaining his passport through a bribe of an official, fled to Chile.
[8] On December 12, 2017, the claimant sought asylum in Canada. The claimant alleged that she fears the government authorities and the Tupamaros, an armed group associated with the government, if she were to return to Venezuela.
DETERMINATION
[9] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[10] The panel finds the claimant, on a balance of probabilities, is a citizen of Venezuela based on the copies of her original passport.4
[11] The panel is satisfied that the claimant has no permanent status, either residency or citizenship, beside Venezuela.
Credibility
[12] Notwithstanding the issue of delay in claiming asylum in Canada, the panel finds that the claimant’s evidence is internally consistent, inherently plausible, and is not contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Venezuela and the personal documents submitted by the claimant. The panel therefore, finds her evidence credible, and that the allegations which form the basis of her subjective fear are, on a balance of probabilities, true.
Objective evidence
[13] Having considered the totality of the evidence and counsel’s submissions, the panel finds that there is sufficient credible or trustworthy objective evidence before it to support the claimant’s subjective fear.
[14] The documentary evidence with respect to the current political climate in Venezuela, including freedom to protest and treatment of protesters at the hands of the authorities, indicated the following:
Venezuela is formally a multiparty, constitutional republic, but for more than a decade, political power has been concentrated in a single party with an increasingly authoritarian executive exercising significant control over the legislative, judicial, citizens’ power (which includes the prosecutor general and ombudsman), and electoral branches of government. On May 20, the government organized snap presidential elections that were neither free nor fair for the 2019- 25 presidential term. Nicolas Maduro was re-elected through this deeply flawed political process, which much of the opposition boycotted and the international community condemned.
[… ]
Human rights issues included extrajudicial killings by security forces, including colectivos (government-sponsored armed groups); torture by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; and political prisoners. The government restricted free expression and the press by routinely blocking signals, and interfering with the operations of, or shutting down, privately owned television, radio, and other media outlets. Libel, incitement, and inaccurate reporting were subject to criminal sanctions. The government used violence to repress peaceful demonstrations. Other issues included restrictions on political participation in the form of presidential elections in May that were not free or fair; pervasive corruption and impunity among all security forces and in other national and state government offices, including at the highest levels…
[…]
… There were continued reports of police abuse and involvement in crime, including illegal and arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, and the excessive use of force. Impunity remained a serious problem in the security forces.
[… ]
In some cases government authorities searched homes without judicial or other appropriate authorization, seized property without due process, or interfered in personal communications. [Special Actions Force] and other security forces regularly conducted indiscriminate household raids.5
[15] Amnesty International reports that:
Anti-government protesters and some opposition leaders were accused by the government of being a threat to national security.
[… ]
The right to peaceful assembly was not guaranteed. According to official data, at least 120 people were killed and more than 1,177 wounded – including demonstrators, members of the security forces and bystanders – during these mass demonstrations.
There were also reports from the Attorney General’s Office that groups of armed people with the support or acquiescence of the government carried out violent actions against demonstrators.
[…]
Hundreds of people reported that they were arbitrarily detained during the protests that took place between April and July. Many were denied access to medical care or a lawyer of their choice and in many cases were subjected to military tribunals. There was a notable increase in the use of military justice to try civilians.6
[16] With respect to anti government Venezuelans returning from abroad, the documentary evidence indicates the following:
… failed refugee claimants who return to Venezuela may face, among other things, the following consequences: not being able to find employment, having their passport cancelled or being imprisoned [translation] “without a regular trial, since the judicial system is subordinate to the executive power”… According to the same source, a person who opposes the government [translation] “runs the risk of being imprisoned and even disappearing”…
[…]
According to the same source, it is very difficult to obtain a passport from abroad, and the national identity card (cédula), which is required “for everything,” including obtaining a passport, is available only in Venezuela … Similarly, the coordinator from La voz de la diaspora venezolana indicated that the government does not allow Venezuelans in the diaspora to obtain identity documents, including national identity cards and passports…7 [footnotes omitted]
[17] In view of the above, the panel finds that the claimant has established that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution should she return to Venezuela, on the grounds of her political opinion.
State protection
[18] The claimant must establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that the state would be unwilling or unable to provide adequate protection if she were to return to her home country, Venezuela.
[19] The panel has taken into consideration the claimant’s profile at the present time, an opponent of the government. The panel has taken into consideration that the claimant fears the Venezuelan authorities. In view of the above noted objective documentary evidence, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection would be unavailable, as the state is the agent of persecution, if she were to return to Venezuela at the time of the hearing. The panel concludes that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this particular circumstance.
Internal flight alternative
[20] As the state is an agent of persecution, and the state authorities are in control throughout the country, there is more than a mere possibility of persecution in all parts of Venezuela. Thus, a viable internal flight alternative is currently not available to the claimant within Venezuela.
CONCLUSION
[21] The panel concludes that [XXX] is a Convention refugee. Thus, the panel need not analyze the refugee protection claim under section 97 of the IRPA.
[22] The panel therefore accepts her claim.
(signed) F. Mortazavi
February 18, 2020
1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C.2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC).
3 Exhibit 6, Amended Narrative received February 7, 2020; and Exhibit 7, Personal Disclosure received February 3, 2020, at pp. 1-2.
4 Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport.
5 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Venezuela (March 29, 2019), item 2. 1.
6 Ibid., item 2.2.
7 Ibid., item 14.3.