Citation: 2020 RLLR 23
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 9, 2020
Panel: K. Bugby
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Keith MacMillan
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: TB9-12310
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000138-0000142
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: So this is the decision for the claimant [XXX], the claimant seeks refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] I have considered the oral testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render a decision orally.
[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as defined under Section 96 of the act and I accept the claim.
[4] The allegations are set out in the basis of claim form, in summary the claimant has been targeted by FARC dissidents as a result of his work as a government employee responsible for the [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX].
[5] The nexus is political opinion and or imputed political opinion and it is expressed though the claimant’s employment.
[6] The claimant on a balance of probabilities has established his identity through his testimony and submission of his Columbian passport and other documents.
[7] Based on the claimant’s credible evidence I accept the following facts and find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities a well founded fear of persecution. The claimant was employed by the state and was responsible for [XXX], efforts subsequent to the signing of the 2016 FARC peace accord.
[8] The claimant’s duties included [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] as obtained from demobilized FARC members.
[9] In [XXX] 2018 the claimant was approached and threatened by armed men demanding the names of ex combatants providing his department with [XXX] information. The men stated that they were acting on behalf of the leader of the FARC dissidents and threatened to kill the claimant unless he provided the information demanded.
[10] Following two subsequent contacts one in which the lives of the claimant’s family were threatened, the claimant fled the area.
[11] In [XXX] 2018 the claimant returned to Florencia and was attacked and threatened at gun point in front of his family. Following the advice of the authorities the claimant provided his attackers with fake information saved to a [XXX].
[12] Shortly after there were reports that the military had bombed the base camp of the FARC dissidents killing their leader and rumors began to circulate that the military learned of the location from a [XXX] and that reprisals would follow.
[13] Fearing that FARC dissidents would believe the claimant to be responsible for providing this information to the military, the claimant made the decision to flee the country and left Columbia two weeks later.
[14] Additionally the claimant is a gay man adding to his fear of the group as they are noted for targeting members of the LGBTQ population.
[15] The objective country documents are consistent with the claimant’s evidence. At Tab 1.2 the reports indicate that following the demobilization of the FARC in 2017 dissidents formed groups throughout Columbia and since a number of demobilized forces have rearmed having lost faith in the peace process.
[16] Further the maps contained in this report show the presence of FARC dissidents throughout Columbia.
[17] At tab 7.22 the reports indicate that many FARC dissident groups have formed alliances with both the ELN and the AGC further extending their reach.
[18] At Tab 1.7 the NDP speaks to the risk profiles of social leaders and human rights activists and at Tab 2.9 indicates a constant level of violence against social leaders and human rights activists perpetrated by the Bacrim.
[19] While the claimant did not self identify as a social leader or activist his employment reflects at the very least activities aimed at social changes and support and in support of demobilization and the peace accord.
[20] Lastly at Tab 6.3 the reports indicate societal abuse and discrimination against the LGBT community and notes that criminal groups target homosexual individuals, though the claimant’s sexual orientation may not be sufficient in itself to establish his claim there are reports that support the claimant’s position that criminal groups target homosexuals thus heightening the claimants level of risk and level of fear.
[21] Based on the forgoing I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has established a well founded fear and serious possibility of persecution in Columbia.
[22] The claimant reported each of the threats to government authorities who undertook to investigate. In the end all that was offered was advise to provide false information to the FARC, advise which the claimant followed in which he believes placed him at greater risk, no other protective measures were put in place.
[23] The claimant’s evidence is consistent with the objective country reports at Tab 7.3 which indicate that the claimant does not fit the profile of those eligible for protection.
[24] At Tab 7.23 the NDP indicates that protection measures for victims are very limited and the measures in place do not meet the needs on the ground.
[25] Based on the claimant’s personal circumstances and the objective country documentation I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, adequate state protection is not available to the claimant.
[26] With respect to internal flight alternative, on a balance of probabilities I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative that would be safe for this claimant, the claimant was threatened by FARC dissidents demanding he provide information about ex combatants who were collaborating with the government regarding land mine location and removal.
[27] Following the advice of the authorities the claimant provided false information and is of the opinion that the risk intensified.
[28] In essence the FARC dissidents were seeking the person who assisted the military to locate and bomb the camp and the claimant fears he would be suspected given his past interactions with the group.
[29] While the claimant left the area and was not located by the FARC dissidents on two occasions I accept as reasonable that the motivation of the group to locate the claimant changed after the bombing of the camp.
[30] Further the parents, the claimant’s parents relocated after the claimant fled Columbia due to the presence of individuals in the area of their home who have, who it was suspected were looking for the claimant. The claimant fears that he would be at risk throughout Columbia.
[31] The country conditions are consistent with the claimant’ s position. At Tab 1.2 the reports indicate that following the demobilization of the FARC in 2017 dissidents formed groups throughout Columbia and since a number of demobilized forces have rearmed.
[32] Further the maps contained in this report show the presence of FARC dissidents across Columbia. At Tab 1.7 the country reports indicate that given the reported ability of guerilla groups to operate country wide a viable IFA may not be available to individuals at risk of being targeted by such actors.
[33] It is particularly important to note the operational capacity of the groups to carry out attacks in all parts of Columbia irrespective of territorial control.
[34] Further the country reports referred as societal abuse and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals and I also note that LGBTQ individuals are targeted by these criminal groups.
[35] The impact of this is twofold the claimant believes and I accept as reasonable that the fact that he is a gay male would provide additional motivation for the FARC to track him and the claimant’ s sexual orientation would render him more visible if he were to attempt to relocate in Columbia.
[36] Having given consideration to the claimant’s personal circumstances and the objective country conditions I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative that would be safe as the claimant faces a risk of persecution in all parts of the country.
[37] In conclusion based on the totality of the evidence I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I accept his claim and we are concluded.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-