MB9-05331

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-05331 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 21, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Dilani Mohan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Alain Joffe Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] These are my reasons for allowing the appeal by the Appellant, XXXX XXXX (Mr. XXXX). The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his claim for protection because it found that he has viable internal flight alternatives (IFAs) in Dhaka and Chittagong. Mr. XXXX disputes the RPD's findings and argues that it ignored relevant documentary evidence. After independently reviewing the record, I find that the RPD's decision is incorrect and that Mr. XXXX is a Convention refugee. BACKGROUND [2] Mr. XXXX is a citizen of Bangladesh and professes to hold secular and inclusive religious views which were instilled in him by his late father, and which he continued to hold throughout his 20 years working as a XXXX in Kuwait. After returning to Bangladesh in XXXX 2017 to live with his wife and child, Mr. XXXX claims he was approached by Islamic extremists affiliated with a local madrassa. During a number of encounters with these individuals, Mr. XXXX expressed his beliefs and criticized Islamic fundamentalism because, after spending 20 years in a more religiously liberal country, he did not understand how dangerous it would be to voice his secular opinion. As a result of his conversations with the extremists, Mr. XXXX claims he was threatened and subsequently advised by his brothers to flee the country. Shortly before Mr. XXXX left Bangladesh, the extremists allegedly raided his home, issued threats, and took with them a photo of Mr. XXXX so that they could distribute it to other extremists in the country as retaliation for his comments and refusal to support the cause of making Bangladesh an Islamic state. [3] On February 21, 2019, the RPD rejected Mr. XXXX claim because it found he could live safely in either Dhaka or Chittagong because the extremists would not be a threat to him there. Arguments on Appeal [4] Mr. XXXX argues that the RPD's decision is incorrect because the RPD ignored documentary evidence that the extremists targeting him are motivated to find him anywhere in Bangladesh and that they are capable of doing so. He further argues that the RPD's IFA analysis did not consider the evidence in its entirety and that the RPD was incorrect in finding that it would be reasonable for him to relocate to either of the IFA locations. [5] Mr. XXXX has not introduced any new evidence in his appeal, and he has not requested an oral hearing. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION (RAD) [6] The RAD must do its own analysis of the record to decide whether or not the RPD's decision was wrong. The RAD generally does not owe any deference except in cases where the RPD held a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral evidence. I do not find that the RPD had a meaningful advantage in this particular case. The standard applied on this appeal is therefore one of correctness. ANALYSIS [7] I find that the RPD's IFA analysis is incorrect and agree with Mr. XXXX that there are significant pieces of reliable and credible information that were not considered which demonstrates that Mr. XXXX will be at risk everywhere in Bangladesh. As such, I find that Mr. XXXX faces a serious possibility of persecution in Bangladesh because there is no safe internal flight alternative for him. [8] In arriving at my conclusion, I have considered all of the evidence and find that Mr. XXXX was a credible witness. I found Mr. XXXX to have generally responded to the best of his ability to the questions being asked and that, sometimes, the nuances of the phrasing or difficulties in translating particular phrases was an issue. His testimony was generally consistent with his narrative, and it was spontaneous and detailed. Where inconsistencies arose, I find that Mr. XXXX limited education was a factor. [9] I find that Mr. XXXX has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he is not a particularly religious Muslim and that he holds secular values because of his father's teachings and his upbringing, as well as his years spent in Kuwait without exposure to religious fundamentalism. I further find, on a balance of probabilities, that he was approached by an Imam and extremist/activist members of a local madrassa and that they repeatedly attempted to both gain knowledge from him about Islamic practice in Kuwait and to coerce him into supporting their school and programming by both attending and making donations. Finally, I accept, on a balance of probabilities, that these individuals threatened Mr. XXXX and ransacked his home when he did not attend their event on XXXX XXXX, 2018, taking with them a photo of Mr. XXXX that they claimed they would distribute through their networks to ensure his death for criticizing Islamic fundamentalism. [10] The RPD found that Mr. XXXX would be less at risk because he was not a high-profile blogger or secularist activist, stating that societal discrimination is low for people who do not publicly express their lack of religious adherence.1 There is some truth to that, but the crux of Mr. XXXX claim is that he did, in fact, profess not only his lack of religious adherence, but he also expressed his belief in secularism publicly to the local Imam and his associated activists. This was the act that not only sets Mr. XXXX apart from other privately, less religious individuals, but it also places him at risk. State Protection [11] The documentary evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that, if identified as a target by religious extremists, state protection is either inadequate or unlikely to be forthcoming. Some reports in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Bangladesh state that, over time, the state has become increasingly non-secular.2 There are reports that various extremist groups such as Jamaat-e-Islam (Jamaat), Ansarul Islam, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and Ansarullah Bangla Team have been responsible for multiple attacks against and murders of secular activists, bloggers, ethnic minorities, and other individuals who were deemed guilty of "offending Islam".3 Other reports note that organizations like Jamaat hold considerable influence in Bangladesh despite their small numbers in parliament. The organization is described as one that "violently suppress critical voices, denouncing them as anti-Islam and blasphemous".4 A major factor in the rise of Jihadism in Bangladesh has been the Jamaat's investment in education in non-religious centres, private schools, colleges, and universities, as well as by establishing many qaumi madrassas,5 which operate outside of government control and are therefore able to teach the Jamaat's extremist ideology.6 [12] Country documents establish that Bangladeshi authorities "seem focused on killing those suspected of involvement with jihadist networks, rather than disrupting or dismantling those networks and countering their influence.7 This means that, although individual extremists are removed from the picture, the networks that cultivated those individuals, their extremist ideology and their violent actions remain. Many government and law enforcement agents apparently have little faith that Bangladesh's criminal justice system is capable of dealing with terrorism cases since there are often no convictions and militants end up recruiting more members from prison.8 [13] In addition to all of these indicia of an inadequate law enforcement system to deal with extremist threats, there is also evidence of rampant corruption among the police and that much of this corruption is linked to the motivations of politicians and other politically connected individuals.9 Other information indicates that, even if the police wanted to help, they are so poorly resourced that they are ineffective and generally unable to provide adequate protection.10 Considered in its totality, I find the evidence demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. XXXX will not benefit from state protection and that he therefore faces a serious possibility of persecution by Islamic fundamentalists in XXXX. Mr. XXXX has no viable IFA in Bangladesh [14] The test11 to determine whether refugee claimants should be required to seek safety elsewhere in their country of origin is two pronged. The first prong asks whether there are any locations in the country of reference where a refugee claimant may live without facing a serious possibility of persecution. That assessment involves considering how motivated the agents of persecution are in finding the claimant and their capacity to reach them. If a safe location can be identified, then the RPD must consider the second prong of the test, which asks whether it would be reasonable under the circumstances to ask a person to relocate to that place. [15] The claimant bears the burden of proof to show that he or she would be at risk anywhere in Bangladesh and specifically in the potential IFA areas of Dhaka and Chittagong. [16] I am aware that the RPD rejected Mr. XXXX claim in part because it found that he had not identified a specific extremist group with which his aggressors were affiliated. Without knowing the specific affiliation of the men who have threatened and are pursuing Mr. XXXX, I find that it is difficult to conclude that they have the means and motivation to locate Mr. XXXX anywhere in Bangladesh. There is simply insufficient evidence to conclude that these particular men have the resources at their disposal and the willingness to travel across the country to harm Mr. XXXX themselves. Since the first prong of the IFA test focuses on whether the specific individuals whom Mr. XXXX fears will be able to find and harm him in the IFA location, I find that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he would not be safe from them in either Dhaka or Chittagong. As a result, I turn to consider the second prong of the IFA analysis. [17] I find the IFA analysis fails on the second prong. I find the lack of information about the particular extremist group to which Mr. XXXX persecutors belong is less relevant to an assessment of the reasonableness of relocation. The documentary evidence indicates that there are multiple extremist groups and unaffiliated extremists living in Bangladesh.12 These organizations operate an expansive and informal network that permits the sharing of information. [18] I disagree with the RPD that there is insufficient evidence that Mr. XXXX identity could be shared across an extremist network simply because the individuals who issued the threats belong to a local madrassa, and because Mr. XXXX could not claim their association to a particularly extremist group. As Mr. XXXX Counsel notes, the RPD did not provide any evidentiary basis for its findings. However, there is evidence that the extremist groups are well connected via the internet and that they have, in the past, established lists of targets that other groups have reportedly taken up and attacked.13 That information is significant because it demonstrates that, if Mr. XXXX face and name are circulated, he stands a serious possibility of being persecuted wherever he goes in Bangladesh. [19] I find that Mr. XXXX has met his obligation and demonstrated that it would be unreasonable for him to move to the proposed IFAs since he could be found and targeted by other extremist organizations. I therefore find that Mr. XXXX faces a serious possibility of persecution anywhere in Bangladesh, such that he is deserving of Canada's protection. CONCLUSION [20] On the basis of the totality of the evidence and the findings above, I find that Mr. XXXX has demonstrated that the RPD's decision was incorrect and that he faces a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of his religious or political beliefs. [21] I therefore allow the appeal. Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I set aside the RPD's decision and substitute a determination that the Appellant, Mr. XXXX, is a Convention refugee. (signed) "Dilani Mohan" Dilani Mohan January 21, 2020 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons and Decision, at para 14; see also NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 1.6, UK Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note, Bangladesh: Religious minorities and atheists, Version 2.0, October 2018, at p. 10. 2 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 12.1, US Department of State, Bangladesh: International Religious Freedom Report for 2017, May 29, 2018, at p. 8. 3 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 12.1 (ibid.), at pp. 5-6; See also item 7.8, International Crisis Group, Countering Jihadist Militancy in Bangladesh, Asia Report No. 295, February 28, 2018; see also news articles in Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 152-189. 4 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 4.9, South Asia Democratic Forum, Facing Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh: A global threat in need of a global response, March 2, 2017, at p. 19. 5 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 7.8 (supra, endnote 3), International Crisis Group, Countering Jihadist Militancy in Bangladesh, Asia Report No. 295, February 28, 2018, at p. 26. 6 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 4.9 (supra, endnote 4), at pp. 18-19. 7 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 7.8 (supra, endnote 3), at p. 20. 8 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 7.8 (supra, endnote 3), at p. 21. 9 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 1.9, UK Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note, Bangladesh: Background information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation. Version 2.0, January 2018, at p. 6, s. 2.2.3, and p. 12, s. 6.4.2; see also item 2.1, US Department of State, Bangladesh: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018, March 13, 2019, at pp. 7-8; see also item 4.4, Asylum Research Consultancy, Bangladesh Query Response: Awami League (AL) and supporters of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), December 15, 2016, at p. 23; 10 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 4.4 (ibid.), at p. 25. 11 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991; [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.). 12 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 12.1 (supra, endnote 2), at pp. 5-6; See also item 7.8 (supra, endnote 3), at p. 16; see also news articles in RPD record at pp. 152-189. 13 NDP for Bangladesh (March 29, 2019), item 7.8 (supra, endnote 3), at p. 12. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-05331 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français