Categories
All Countries Burundi

2020 RLLR 7

Citation: 2020 RLLR 7
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 28, 2020
Panel: Jacqueline La
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Cynthia Niteka
Country: Burundi
RPD Number: MB7-24231
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000044-000049


REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       The claimant, [XXX], born on [XXX], 1967, is a citizen of the Republic of Burundi. He is claiming protection in Canada under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant is of Tutsi ethnicity. From 1986 until his retirement in 2010, the claimant worked [XXX].

[3]       In 2015, when Burundian president Pierre Nkurunziza declared that he wanted to run in the elections, even though he knew that a third presidential term violated the provisions of the Constitution, which set the limit at two terms, Burundi was plunged into a serious crisis marked by ethnic clashes. The Tutsis were accused of trying to destabilize the government, and former members of the Tutsi-dominated Burundian armed forces (ex-FAB) were apparently targeted by the Burundian authorities.

[4]       When he realized that several of his former colleagues had been victims of targeted killings, and after becoming a person of interest to the police, the claimant started sensing that his own safety was at risk.

[5]       Accordingly, the claimant left Burundi on [XXX], 2017, and after a brief two-week stay in the United States, he came to Canada and claimed refugee protection.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       The claimant’s identity was established to the panel’s satisfaction by a copy of his passport issued by the Burundian authorities that was entered on the record.1 The panel concludes that it is an acceptable document establishing identity within the meaning of section 106 of the IRPA.

Credibility

[7]       In general, no contradictions, omissions or implausibilities were identified in the claimant’s testimony. In support of his allegations about his lengthy career in the Burundian [XXX], the claimant filed a photograph of himself [XXX],2 a certificate of service issued by the [XXX],3 and his bank: statement showing deposits of his retirement pension from the [XXX].4

[8]       In short, the panel finds that the claimant is a credible witness.

[9]       So, what does the documentary evidence on the ex-FAB say?

[10]     For decades, the Tutsis were given preferential treatment over their Hutu compatriots in the FAB.

[11]     However, following the Arusha peace agreement and the election of President Nkurunziza, a Hutu, in 2005, the FAB had to integrate thousands of former Hutu rebels into the corps. As a result, many Tutsi soldiers from past military regimes were quietly retired from their commands, transferred or dispersed to isolated provincial locations.5

[12]     In 2015, there was strong opposition to President Nkurunziza’s decision to run in the presidential elections because it violated the constitution, which limited the presidency to two terms.

[13]     Divisions between the ethnic groups in Burundi started to manifest themselves, especially within the security forces.6 The movement against the third term became more ethnically driven against the Tutsis and became more about the military.7 Since the beginning of the crisis and especially since January 2017, the army has been the target of a purge and reprisal campaigns mainly against the ex-FAB, both active and retired.8 The Burundian authorities have been accused of being involved in dozens of targeted murders, forced disappearances and arbitrary arrests of former soldiers and police officers in the Tutsi-dominated Burundian armed forces. The evidence also indicates that the bodies of ex-FAB soldiers, both active and retired, are often found in rural or urban areas.9 The ex-FAB are considered to be disloyal elements in the army and likely to tum against President Nkurunziza because of their ethnicity.

[14]     So, after learning that two of his former [XXX] had been arrested by the police, the claimant decided not to respond to the summons from the commissioner general10 and to leave the country.

[15]     Given those circumstances, even though the claimant was not personally targeted before he left his country, the evidence shows that ex-FAB members are persecuted by the current regime by reason of their real or imputed political opinion. As Justice Shore eloquently stated in Matore,11 “Something must certainly be done before we see the corpses in the media.”

State protection

[16]     The evidence is clear: opponents of the regime, or people perceived as such, as in the case of the ex-FAB, cannot expect to obtain protection from protection and security services, who are politicized in favour of the Nkurunziza regime.12

[17]     Therefore, at this time, it is simply unreasonable to expect that the claimant could obtain adequate protection from the authorities, when they are his agent of persecution. Accordingly, the panel is of the opinion that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

Internal flight alternative

[18]     As mentioned, in this case, the agent of persecution is the entire state apparatus, which has the interest and the necessary resources to find the claimant no matter where he is, especially in a small country like Burundi. Therefore, the panel concludes that there is no internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[19]     Having considered all the evidence, the panel concludes that the claimant has discharged his burden of establishing that there is a serious possibility that he would be persecuted on one of the five Convention grounds. The panel determines that he is a “Convention refugee.”

DECISION

[20]     The refugee protection claim is allowed.

(signed)           Jacqueline La

January 28, 2020

1 Document 1 – Information package provided by the Canada Border Service Agency and/or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Passport.
2 Document 4 – Exhibit P-11: Photograph of [XXX] in a [XXX]. Document 4 – 3
3 Exhibit P-1: Certificate of service.
4 Document 4 – Exhibit P-7: Cooperative statement (for [XXX] retirement pension).
5 Document 3 – National Docupentation Package, Burundi, March 29, 2019 (NDP on Burundi), Tab 13.1: Response to Information Request, BD1105750.FE, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, March 6, 2017.
6 Supra, footnote 5.
7 Idem.
8 Document 3 – NDP on Burundi, Tab 2.7: Burundi on the Brink: Looking Back on Two Years of Terror, International Federation for Human Rights; Ligue burundaise des droits de l’homme [Burundian human rights league], June 2017, p.12.
9 Idem.
10 Document 4 – Exhibits P-2 and P-3: Convocations de la police nationale du Burundi [summonses from the Burundi national police].
11 Matore v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 1009.
12 Document 3 – NDP on Burundi, Tab 2.1: Burundi. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018, United States, Department of State, March 13, 2019.