2019 RLLR 122

2019 RLLR 122 Citation: 2019 RLLR 122 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: February 19, 2019 Panel: R. Jackson Counsel for the Claimant(s): Solomon Orjiwuru Country: Cameroon RPD Number: TB7-12430 ATIP Number: A-2021-00256 ATIP Pages: 000026-000029 DECISION [1] MEMBER: This is the decision of [XXX], who claims to be a citizen of Cameroon and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. [2] The panel finds the claimant is a Convention Refugee on the grounds of his membership in a particular social group, that of bisexual man in Cameroon, for the following reasons. [3] In rendering its reasons, the panel has considered the Chairperson’s Guideline Number 9 proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. [4] The claimant has alleged that he identifies as bisexual. He alleges he has had a few same-sex relationships in Cameroon. He was married to a woman in Canada and they have divorced because she discovered that he had been carrying on a same-sex relationship in Canada. [5] He claimed refugee protection as he cannot live openly as a bisexual in Cameroon and fears persecution, arrest and discrimination at the hands of the family of his ex-wife, the community and the government due to his sexual orientation. [6] The claimant’s identity as a national of Cameroon is established by his testimony and the supporting documentation filed including a certified true copy of his passport in Exhibit 1. [7] His identity as a bisexual is established by his credible testimony and the supporting documentation filed including a letter from the claimant’s mother, a copy of her identity card, a letter from the claimant’s former landlord as well as the claimant’s divorce documents, wherein his sexual orientation is discussed. The supporting documentation does not establish the claimant’s sexual orientation all by itself, but it does support his allegations in that regard. [8] The claimant’s testimony regarding his sexual orientation was believable including how he described his relationships with his same-sex partners in Cameroon and in Canada. [9] The panel accepts that the claimant is bisexual because, in that regard, his testimony was coherent, spontaneous and he generally provided a sufficient level of detail when explaining his same-sex relationships with men. For these reasons, the panel finds that he has established his identity as a bisexual man on a balance of probabilities. [10] The panel also finds that his allegations are supported by the country documentation, which is found at the National Documentation Package for Cameroon, Items 2.1, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.6, which indicate that consensual same-sex sexual activity is illegal and punishable by a prison sentence of 6 months to 5 years and a fine. [11] Cameroon prosecutes people for consensual same-sex conduct more aggressively than almost any country in the world. Cameroon’s anti-homosexuality law is easily subject to abuse and can be used by virtually anyone as a method of settling scores. [12] It is also a recipe for extortion. There are numerous examples of sexual minorities who were arrested or who were victims of violence, similarly grave violations of human rights because of a person’s real or perceived sexual orientation has become common in Cameroon. [13] The climate in that country is marked by pervasive homophobia. Ordinary citizens often express extreme hatred towards LGBT individuals. In Cameroon, it is common to link homosexuality to witchcraft. [14] Given the claimant’s credible testimony, the objective country condition evidence and the supporting documents the claimant filed, the panel finds that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution in Cameroon based on his sexual orientation. [15] Based on his personal circumstances, the panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for him to seek the protection of the State, and in any event the State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming; the police are one of the agents of persecution. [16] It is very clear from the objective documentation that there is no State protection available to sexual minorities in Cameroon, same-sex acts are illegal in Cameroon and the NDP indicates that police do arrest people for engaging in consensual same-sex sexual activity. [17] A report by the Finnish Immigration Service at Item 6.4 states that when LGBTI people seek protection from abuse in their communities, police officers fail to protect these individuals. [18] Police officers not only discriminate against LGBTI individuals, but also engage in harassment and violence against them. The threat of arrest for homosexual conduct can deter LGBTI individuals from reporting crimes committed against them, and those committing the abuse have done so with impunity. [19] Given the documentary evidence, the panel finds there is clear and convincing evidence that adequate State protection is not available to the claimant. [20] The panel has considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. On the evidence before the panel, there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Cameroon. [21] Given that homophobia is widespread in Cameroon, the homosexual acts are illegal throughout all of Cameroon and there is no State protection throughout the whole of Cameroon, the panel finds there is no place the claimant could go in Cameroon where he could live openly as a bisexual man. For these reasons, the panel finds there is no viable internal flight alternative for him. [22] So, in conclusion, the panel finds that he is a Convention refugee and therefore accepts his claim. [23] This hearing is now concluded. So, thank you both for your participation today. [24] COUNSEL: Thank you so much. [25] CLAIMANT: Thank you. [26] MEMBER: You’re welcome. ———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-