2023 RLLR 148

2023 RLLR 148 Citation: 2023 RLLR 148 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: November 8, 2023 Panel: Zonia M. Ouchakov Counsel for the Claimant(s): Asah Policap Koffi Country: Cameroon RPD Number: VC3-06135 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2024-00768 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”), who is a citizen of Cameroon and is making a claim for refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1] ALLEGATIONS [2] The claimant’s allegations are fully set out in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form and the attached narrative.[2] In summary, the claimant fears returning to Cameroon because she has been targeted by separatist fighters as a traitor, and she has been threatened by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, after she reported that he raped her. [3] In XXXX 2021, separatist fighters broke into the claimant’s house and began assaulting her father for refusing to support them financially. The claimant’s mother gave them some money and they warned that they would return to collect more money. The following day, the claimant went to the police and reported the incident. A few days later, the claimant was walking home when she was kidnapped by separatist fighters. [4] The claimant was taken to a separatist camp, and once there, she was able to identify her neighbour’s son as one of the separatists. He said that the claimant would be punished for being a traitor and reporting the separatist fighters to the police. The claimant was tortured and raped by several separatist fighters. The separatists gave the claimant a phone and asked her to contact her father to request a ransom. However, their plan was to kill her after the ransom was paid. [5] After five days, the separatists left the camp and the claimant remained with only one guard. However, the guard fell asleep, giving the claimant the opportunity to escape. Once she arrived home, the claimant went to the police station and immediately reported her kidnapping. The commissioner recommended that the claimant be taken to the hospital and to return to the police station afterward. The police told the claimant’s parents that they do not have the means to protect civilians, and he recommended that the claimant go live in the French part of Cameroon. The claimant was taken to the hospital, and she was discharged on XXXX XXXX, 2021. [6] The claimant returned to the police station, where she remained for XXXX XXXX under police custody for protection. However, the claimant decided to leave the police station because she was raped by two officers, one of which was the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant left her hometown and went to Buea to continue her studies; however, she was XXXX and unable to focus. The claimant’s mother warned her to conceal the information of what happened at the police station; however, the clamant could not keep such a secret to herself. [7] The claimant reported the rape to the coordinator of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who reported the case to the commissioner of police and to the Human Rights Defence Group in Buea. A few days later, the commissioner of police called the claimant asking for proof that she had been raped. He insisted that there was no proof and the officers denied the allegations. The XXXX XXXX also called the claimant, and he threatened to kill her if she did not stop reporting the rape, and he promised that the claimant would not live to testify against him. [8] As a result of the threats, the claimant’s family began planning for her to leave the country. The claimant applied to study in Europe and in Canada. While waiting for a visa, the claimant’s father told her that separatist fighters had made many attempts to attack their home but had been chased away by volunteer guards. In XXXX 2022, a letter was found at their home, threatening that the separatists would kill the claimant. The claimant lived in Douala until she left Cameroon on XXXX XXXX, 2023. The claimant travelled to Canada and made a claim for protection shortly after arriving in the country. DETERMINATION [9] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of IRPA as she has established, with credible and trustworthy evidence, that she faces a well-founded fear of persecution in Cameroon. The nexus between the claimant’s allegations and the Convention[3] are imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group, namely women facing gender related persecution. [10] In arriving at my determination, I have considered and applied the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.[4] ANALYSIS Identity [11] The claimant’s identity as a national of Cameroon is established by the sworn statement in her BOC form[5] and the certified copy of her Cameroonian passport in evidence.[6] Credibility [12] There is a presumption that sworn testimony is true unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its truthfulness.[7] In this case, I found the claimant to be a credible witness. Her testimony was consistent and forthright. She testified in a clear and concise manner and did not embellish her testimony. [13] The claimant testified that she is wanted by the separatist fighters for denouncing them to the police. She is seen as a traitor and fears them because they are ruthless. For example, in 2018, one of her friends was buried alive by separatists because she gave information to the police about them. [14] The claimant testified that although she was only 16 years old at the time, she decided to go to the police because she was afraid that if the separatists returned, matters would be worse than the first time. She went to the police asking for help; however, they told her that they did not have the resources to protect civilians. The police advised the claimant to tell her parents and to take precautions. [15] After the claimant was kidnapped and escaped the separatists, she and her parents went to the police again. The claimant was placed in protective custody until things calmed down. However, she only stayed at the police station for XXXX XXXX XXXX because she was raped by two officers, one of which was the XXXX XXXX. The claimant testified that once she reported the rape, she received one threatening call from the XXXX XXXX who told her that she would not make it to testify against him as he would kill her for reporting the rape. [16] Between XXXX 2021 and XXXX 2023, the claimant lived in Buea and Douala with her mother. While in these cities, she did not have any problems with the separatist fighters; however, they continued to visit her parents’ home looking for her. The claimant feared for her life in both these cities because separatists have moved into different areas, including Francophone Cameroon, thus she fears that they will target her, regardless of where she is living. [17] In addition to the claimant’s credible testimony, I have considered the documentary evidence submitted in support of her claim,[8] including: · Affidavit from the claimant’s Cameroonian lawyer corroborating the events alleged by the claimant. · Affidavit from the claimant’s mother outlining the claimant’s experiences in Cameroon. · XXXX XXXX XXXX report. · Attestation from the Kumba police station regarding the dealings with the claimant, including the fact that on two occasions the police has intervened on attacks by separatist fighters and that the claimant reported the rape by two officers; however, an investigation was conducted, and no substantial evidence was provided to substantiate the claim. [18] I find that the documentary evidence before me is consistent with the claimant’s allegations and corroborates her claim. Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I find that the claimant’s allegations are credible. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm [19] In Ward[9], the Supreme Court of Canada held that the test for establishing a fear of persecution is bi-partite in nature. Refugee claimants must establish both that they have a subjective fear of persecution if they return to their home country and that their fear is well-founded in an objective sense. The subjective component relates to the existence of fear of persecution in the mind of the refugee and the objective component requires that the refugee’s fear be evaluated objectively to determine if there is a valid basis for that fear.[10] Subjective Fear [20] Based on the claimant’s testimony and evidence, I find that she has established with credible and trustworthy evidence, that she genuinely fears persecution upon return to Cameroon. I have considered that the claimant travelled to Canada from Cameroon, and she made her claim for protection shortly after arriving here. Having found that the claimant is a credible witness and that her testimony is consistent, I find that her evidence is sufficient to meet the subjective aspect of the bi-partite test.[11] Objective Basis [21] In addition to showing that she has a genuine fear, the claimant must show that her fear is well-founded in an objective sense. I have reviewed the country condition evidence before me and I find that this evidence establishes that the claimant faces an objectively well-founded fear of persecution in Cameroon. [22] The socio-political crisis in Cameroon began in 2016 in the Anglophone Northwest and Southwest regions. Since, it has mutated into an armed conflict between Cameroonian authorities and separatist fighters.[12] The conflict has had a substantial social and humanitarian impact on Anglophone regions with most schools having been closed for the last two years, more than 170 villages have been destroyed, and 530,000 people have been internally displaced.[13] The government has responded with “denial, disdain and violence.”[14] Peaceful protests were violently dispersed by the police, resulting in many being arrested, beaten, insulted, and abandoned in various places far from where they were arrested. [15] [23] The situation in Northwest and Southwest Cameroon is described as a human rights catastrophe and international organizations report deteriorating political, humanitarian, and security conditions because of extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrest, and deprivations of liberty.[16] The Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa states the following: There is evidence that much of the violence is intentional and planned, including retaliation attacks on villages by government security forces, often followed by indiscriminate shooting into crowds of civilians, invasions of private homes and murder of their inhabitants, and the rounding up and shooting of villagers. Violence against women has been widely reported. Non-state actors, including local armed groups, also bear much responsibility for the violence. Separatist militias are battling government forces, while two organizations have been directing separatists from outside Cameroon to fight not only against Cameroonian security forces, but also against progovernment “self-defence” groups. Meanwhile, criminal gangs terrorize local inhabitants, wreaking havoc.[17] [24] The United States (U.S.) Department of State report indicates that there are significant human rights concerns in Cameroon including extrajudicial killings by security forces and armed Anglophone separatists.[18] This document indicates that armed separatists are targeting civilians. They have kidnapped dozens of persons, burned property, threatened, assaulted, and killed civilians.[19] Furthermore, separatists frequently sexually assault civilians.[20] [25] Human Rights Watch reports that armed separatist fighters have committed grave human rights abuses, such as killings and rape across the Anglophone regions of Cameroon.[21] The same report states the following: “Armed separatist groups are kidnapping, terrorizing, and killing civilians across the English-speaking regions with no apparent fear of being held to account by either their own leaders or Cameroonian law enforcement” said Ilaria Allegrozzi, senior central Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch.[22] [26] The country condition evidence before me is consistent with the claimant’s experiences as she has been targeted by armed separatists, including being raped. However, I find that the claimant’s fears go beyond being a civilian that has been targeted by armed separatists. Her issues are more serious because she reported the separatists to police, thus she is seen as a traitor. [27] In terms of the fear of the police, the evidence before me is that much of the violence occurring in Cameroon is intentional and planned by government security forces. Including retaliation attacks, indiscriminate shootings, murder, and violence against women.[23] The government forces are said to respond to the threat from separatists with attacks on civilians and serious human rights violations of their own.[24] Serious government corruption is reported, and impunity remains a serious problem in Cameroon.[25] [28] I find that the country condition evidence before me establishes that the Cameroonian authorities are responsible for serious human rights violations, including violence against women. This is consistent with the claimant’s experience, as she was raped when she turned to the police for help. State Protection [29] There is a presumption that countries can protect their citizens, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection is inadequate or non-existent.[26] However, this is a rebuttable presumption and the burden rests with the claimant to establish with “clear and convincing proof” of the state’s inability to protect.[27] State protection will be found to exist when there is adequate protection at the operational level.[28] [30] The claimant went to the police on two occasions for help. Both times, she was told that the police could not protect civilians from separatist fighters. Furthermore, on the second occasion, the claimant was offered protection by being placed in police custody. And while under police protection, she was further victimized by being raped by two different officers. [31] As outlined above, the country condition evidence indicates the following about the Cameroonian authorities: Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings; enforced disappearances; torture and other ill-treatment by the government and nonstate armed groups; harsh and lifethreatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrests or detention; political prisoners or detainees; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual; serious abuses in a conflict, including abductions and physical abuse, by nonstate armed groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including violence, threats of violence, or unjustified detentions of journalists and censorship; substantial interference with the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; serious restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; lack of investigations and accountability for gender-based violence.[29] [32] I find that the evidence of corruption, serious human rights violations, and the claimant’s own experiences with the authorities establish that they are unable or unwilling to protect her. As such, the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this case. Internal Flight Alternative [33] The Federal Court of Appeal in Rasaratnam,[30] developed a two-prong test when assessing whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) is viable, this test entails a consideration of two matters: (1) would the claimant be at risk in the IFA, and (2) is it reasonable for the claimant to relocate there. [34] The claimant is an anglophone, she is 18-years old, has never worked in Cameroon and has always relied on her parents. I find that this makes relocation difficult, as she would have to rely on the help of her parents. Furthermore, the evidence before me is that the government has placed serious restrictions on freedom of movement.[31] Travelers are extorted and harassed by police and gendarmes at checkpoints in cities and on most highways. Travelers were often stopped by police to check identification documents, and some were denied passage to certain areas. Armed separatists also restricted movement of persons and goods by deliberately attempting to harass and intimidate the local population. Furthermore, separatist fighters often used weekly lockdowns to enforce restrictions on movement, in which separatists demanded that all businesses close and residents stay home.[32] I find that the restriction on freedom of movement, both by the Cameroonian authorities and by armed fighters, make an internal flight alternative (IFA) not viable in this case. The claimant would have to travel to relocate, thus is likely to face check stops and may be denied entry into certain portions of Cameroon, thereby affecting her ability to resettle elsewhere in Cameroon. [35] Based on the evidence before me, I find that there is no viable IFA for the claimant in Cameroon. CONCLUSION [36] For the above noted reasons, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee. As such, her claim for protection is accepted. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ——— [1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. [2] Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim form, including amendments to pages 4, 7 and 8. Signed on April 28, 2023. [3] Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (189 U.N.T.S. 150, entered into force April 22, 1954). United Nations. 1951. [4] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board. (November 1996; Revised July 2022) [5] Supra, footnote 2. [6] Exhibit 1, Cameroonian passport: XXXX. [7] Maldonado v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1979 CanLII 4098 (FCA), [1980] 2 FC 302 (CA). [8] Exhibit 4, Personal and country condition documents, October 19, 2023 [9] Ward: Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85. [10] Rajudeen, Zahirdeen v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-1779-83), Heald, Hugessen, Stone (concurring), July 4, 1984. Reported: Rajudeen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1984), 55 N.R. 129 (F.C.A.), at 134. [11] Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1995 CanLII71 (SCC) [1995]3SCR593. [12] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Cameroon, April 28, 2023, tab 4.4: Cameroon’s Anglophone Crisis: How to Get to Talks?. Africa Report N°272. International Crisis Group. 2 May 2019. [13] Supra, footnote 12. [14] Supra, footnote 12. [15] Exhibit 3, NDP, tab 2.2: Cameroon. Amnesty International Report 2022/23: The State of the World’s Human Rights. Amnesty International. 27 March 2023. POL 10/5670/2023. [16] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.8: Cameroon’s Unfolding Catastrophe: Evidence of Human Rights Violations and Crimes against Humanity. Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa; Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. Ntebo Ebenezer Awungafac et al. June 3, 2019. [17] Supra, footnote 16. [18] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1: Cameroon. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020. United States. Department of State. February 27, 2023. [19] Supra, footnote 18. [20] Supra, footnote 18. [21] Exhibit 3, NDP, tab 2.7: Cameroon: Separatist Abuses in Anglophone Regions. Human Rights Watch. 27 June 2022. [22] Supra, footnote 18. [23] Exhibit 3, NDP, tab 2.8: Cameroon’s Unfolding Catastrophe: Evidence of Human Rights Violations and Crimes against Humanity. Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa; Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. Ntebo Ebenezer Awungafac et al. 3 June 2019. [24] Exhibit 3, NDP, tab 10.4: Cameroon: New Abuses by Both Sides: Protect Civilians in Anglophone Regions, Hold Attackers Accountable. Human Rights Watch. 2 August 2021. [25] Supra, footnote 18. [26] Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), 2008 FCA 94. [27] Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th), 1, 20 IMM. L.R. (2d) 85. [28] Kovacs v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 337. [29] Supra, footnote 18. [30] Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.). [31] Supra, footnote 18. [32] Supra, footnote 18.