Categories
All Countries Sri Lanka

2020 RLLR 20

Citation: 2020 RLLR 20
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 19, 2020
Panel: Tyler Nicholson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): John W Grice/Cemone Morlese
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: TB9-00748
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-00789, TB9-00806, TB9-00807
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000124-0000129


REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The claimants [XXX] (hereafter the “male claimant”), [XXX] (hereafter the “female claimant”), [XXX], and [XXX] purport to be citizens of Sri Lanka. They have claimed refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1

Designated Representative

[2]       At the time of the hearing, the minor claimants [XXX] and [XXX] were minors. As the principal claimant is their father, the panel designated him as their representative. At the start of the hearing, the principal claimant confirmed his role as the designated representative and his responsibilities therein.

[3]       Given their ages, the panel did not require the minor claimants to testify during the hearing.

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       The claimants’ allegations are set out in full in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.2 The claimants allege that they are being persecuted due to the male claimant’s work as [XXX] for a NGO that [XXX] of politicians.

[5]       The male claimant claimed to have become involved with the [XXX]. As part of his work, he investigated a number of prominent politicians and after reporting discrepancies in their [XXX], testified he became a target.

[6]       The claimant indicated that he was kidnapped, brought to a rural village, and severely beaten, and was threatened with further harm.

[7]       The claimants left Sri Lanka on [XXX], 2018. The principal claimant’s mother testified that the police have come to their house repeatedly and asked about the claimants.

DETERMINATION

[8]       The panel concludes that the claimants are persons in need of protection due to a risk to their lives.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[9]       The panel was provided with true copies of valid passports and birth certificates from Sri Lanka for all claimants.3

[10]     The panel finds that these documents and the testimony of the claimants are sufficient to establish their identities on a balance of probabilities.

Nexus

[11]     The claimants are Sinhalese, Buddhist, and speak the Sinhala language, in common with the majority of the country.

[12]     The claimant indicated that he was being targeted due to his political affiliation with [XXX] political party, the National Unity Alliance. The male claimant was asked what party symbol appeared on ballots next to the party name, a traditionally important symbol in Sri Lankan politics.

[13]     The claimant indicated he did not know. When it was put to him that it traditionally used an image of eyeglasses, the claimant was candid with the panel that he was not heavily involved in the political side of the foundation, and did not regularly vote.

[14]     The panel finds it unlikely that the male claimant would be imputed as a supporter of a political movement he had next to no involvement in. Given the male claimant’s clear testimony on the matter, the panel did not draw a negative inference with regard to his credibility.

[15]     Taking in to account the claimant’s BOC narrative and his testimony, the reason his agents of persecution are targeting him relies on his performance of accounting duties with [XXX] and his probable reporting of crimes and regulatory offences. It is not because of his political beliefs. The panel finds that the male claimant was not politically involved in Sri Lanka, and finds that there is not a nexus connection to the Convention on the ground of political belief. This also means that the other claimants are not members of a particular social group as family members of the male claimant.

[16]     The panel finds that the claimants have not established a nexus to the convention. The panel must find that the claimants are not Convention refugees. The panel will continue its analysis regarding Section 97(1) of IRPA.

Credibility

[17]     The panel found both adult claimants to be generally credible in their testimony. They answered questions clearly and completely, were spontaneous, and did not seem calculating in their responses. The claimants also provided considerable corroborating documentary evidence, including affidavits from family members, medical notes, and letters from the organizations the male claimant was a member of.

[18]     The panel accepts that the male claimant worked as an [XXX], that he was abducted and beaten by the police as described, and that the other claimants were threatened due to his actions.

Objective Basis

[19]     The panel also considered objective evidence contained in the National Documentation Package, which noted that police in Sri Lanka are notorious for being able, despite legal guidelines, to arbitrarily detain and question suspects.4 The panel finds that, given the local police and other thugs have been after the claimants, the claimants have credibly indicated that the claimants have been targeted by the agents of persecution and are being pursued and face a risk to their lives.

[20]     Given the specific targeting of the claimants due to the male claimant’s accounting of funds of specific politicians, the panel finds that this would not be a risk generally faced by others, and is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions.

[21]     The panel finds that the claimants have established an objective basis for their claim, and finds that they fear, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to their lives or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if detained.

STATE PROTECTION

[22]     The state is presumed able to provide adequate protection to its citizens. Therefore, claimants have the duty to seek state protection before seeking protection in Canada. However, in certain circumstances, it would be objectively unreasonable to expect a claimant to do so. Furthermore, the protection available to a claimant may not be adequate given their specific circumstances.

[23]     The claimants testified that the local police were targeting them, and that they feared going to authorities due to them being targeted by politicians. This is corroborated by objective evidence, which notes that witness protection regimes in Sri Lanka are not considered viable or up to international standards, and are prone to abuse.5

[24]     The panel finds that the claimants have rebutted the presumption regarding adequate state protection existing in Sri Lanka.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[25]     The panel finds the claimants have credibly established that the agents of persecution have the ability to track the claimants, given that they have effective control over the entire country, and finds that there is no IFA for the claimants in the entirety of Sri Lanka due to a risk to the claimant’s life existing, on a balance of probabilities, throughout Sri Lanka.

CONCLUSION

[26]     The panel finds that the claimants, on a balance of probabilities, face a threat to their lives if they were to return to Sri Lanka and are persons in need of protection.

[27]     Their claims are accepted.

(signed)           Tyler Nicholson

June 19, 2020

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibits 2-5.
3 Exhibit 8, pp. 73-89.
4 Exhibit 3, 1.4 at 8.2.4
5 Exhibit 3, 1.4 at 6.6.4, 1.9 at 5.12.