2022 RLLR 68

2022 RLLR 68 Citation: 2022 RLLR 68 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: August 4, 2022 Panel: Arjan Sethi Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ian D. Hamilton Country: Sri Lanka RPD Number: TC2-01790 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2022-01960 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION [1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen Sri Lanka who seeks refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This decision is being rendered from the bench. I find XXXX XXXX XXXX, to be a Convention refugee because he faces a serious possibility of persecution due to his imputed political opinion. [2] According to your Basis of Claim form, you are a Tamil who lived in the north region of Sri Lanka and you fear persecution at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities because you chose not to act as an informant for them on the LTTE. You stated that you fled Sri Lanka on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, and arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. You fear that if you were to return to Sri Lanka, you would face persecution by Sri Lankan authorities and you would not be able to live safely in Sri Lanka. [3] The Panel notes that the Board invited the Minister to intervene on the basis of integrity issues as stipulated by rule 27 on May 2nd, 2022. The Board highlighted that the claimant did not present any identity documents at the port of entry and that he stated that he lost his passport in the jungle and that he could not remember his flight details and transit dates. The Panel notes that the Minister has not intervene on this refugee claim. The claimant adduced into evidence an uncertified photocopy of the first page of his passport and an uncertified copy of his birth certificate. The claimant testified that he used his genuine passport to exit Sri Lanka but did not have it with him when he arrived in Canada because while he was traveling through the jungle in Panama the smuggler took his passport. He further testified to have taken a photocopy of his passport, including his name and photograph, prior to exiting Sri Lanka. The Panel notes that the claimant credibly testified on the names of his father and mother and their respective birth dates as they are stipulated on his birth certificate. The claimant also submitted his original driver’s licence and a copy of his national ID card. The identified information on these documents matches the information on the passport and birth certificate. The personal and national identity of the claimant as a national of Sri Lanka has been established on a balance of probabilities by an uncertified copy of his passport, an uncertified copy of his birth certificate, his driver’s licence, and national ID card, which are found at Exhibit 5. [4] I find there is a nexus to the Convention ground, namely political opinion. Accordingly, the claim is being assessed under section 96. I note there were no material inconsistencies, omissions or contradictions between your testimony and other evidence in this claim. I find that you provided credible and spontaneous testimony and were able to clearly explain why the Sri Lankan authorities are interested in you. I find that your first interaction with the Sri Lankan authorities occurred in XXXX 2016. You testified that you worked as a XXXX and would XXXX XXXX to different villages and sites. You testified that the army stopped you in XXXX as you were working and inquired why you had XXXX XXXX to this area and if you are knew of the rift between Tamil and Sinhalese in this area. [5] I find that your second interaction with the Sri Lankan authorities occurred on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. You testified that you attended a demonstration regarding the release of Tamil youths that were detained by the army after the war. You testified that you attended this demonstration to accompany your friend’s mother and that this friend had disappeared during the war. I note the support letter provided by your friend’s mother that you adduced into evidence corroborates your testimony regarding the demonstration on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and that the army visited your home on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. [6] I find that your third interaction with Sri Lankan authorities occurred in XXXX 2019. You testified that authorities came to your home and told you that you had to help them by getting the names of those who are involved with reviving the LTTE. You testified that the authorities knew you would be taking people for a memorial event on XXXX XXXX, 2019, as you had taken people in the past. You testified that they wanted you to get information when you got to the memorial service. You provide examples of these types of — you provided examples of the types of information they wanted, such as which individuals were speaking on the microphone and if any Tamils were attending from foreign countries. You further shared that they wanted you to get the addresses of these people. You testified that two (2) army officers return to your home in XXXX 2019 to confirm if you are ready to carry out this plan. You testified that they threatened you and said that they would arrest you under the Terrorism Act if you did not help them. I found your testimony credible and that you provided (inaudible) details in your testimony. I find on a balance of probabilities that since you did not carry out these tasks dictated by the army officials, the state authorities would consider you a political dissident and a supporter of the LTTE. The Panel notes that the claimant also testified credibly on how his father and uncle have been persecuted by Sri Lankan authorities in the past for their perceived affiliation to the LTTE. [7] I note the corroborating documents you provided: a witness statement from your father, a support letter from your friend’s mother, and a letter from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka regarding a complaint made by your friend’s mother about her son’s abduction in 2008. As there is no reason to doubt their authenticity, I assign full weight to these documents in support of the claimant’s testimony. Based on your credible testimony and supporting documentary evidence, I find that if you were to return to Sri Lanka, you would be persecuted by Sri Lankan authorities for your imputed political opinion of being a supporter of the LTTE. I find that you have established a subjective fear of return to Sri Lanka as you face persecution by Sri Lankan authorities. [8] I find, based on the objective documentary evidence, that your subjective fear is subjectively well-founded. In its 2021 Freedom in the World report for Sri Lanka, Freedom House has stated police and security forces have engaged in extrajudicial executions, force disappearances, custodial rape, and torture, all of which disproportionately affect Tamils. Ethnic and religious minorities are vulnerable to violence and mistreatment by security forces and Sinhalese Buddhist extremists. Item 13.1 indicates that Tamils, particularly in the north and east, reported that security forces regularly monitored and harassed community members, especially activists, journalists, and former or suspected former LTTE members. Item 13.1 also indicates that people connected to politically sensitive war related issues, such as missing persons, land release, and memorial events, are more like — are most likely to be monitored. According to the Asylum Research Centre, the northern region of Sri Lanka is on lockdown, militarized, and under the tightest and most insidious system of surveillance which reaches down to the village level. The slightest sign of activity leads to disproportionate responses with scant regard for human rights and civil liberties. The objective evidence supports the claimant’s subjective fear of persecution. I find that the claimant has made out a well-founded fear of persecution based on his imputed political opinion. [9] Concerning state protection, I note it is the state authorities who have outlawed the LTTE and that those who are perceived as supporters of the movement are persecuted by the state. Therefore, I find it objectively unreasonable for you to seek protection of the state, and I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that there is no state protection available to you. And similarly, there is not a reasonable internal flight alternative for you within Sri Lanka as the state is the agent persecution and support of the LTTE is banned throughout the country. [10] Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis and considering all the evidence that I have before me, I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX, faces a serious possibility of persecution due to his imputed political opinion in Sri Lanka and is therefore a Convention refugee. I accept your claim. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———