Category: Lebanon

Citation: 2022 RLLR 17
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 23, 2022
Panel: Doug Armstrong
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ronald Yacoub
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: VC1-06944
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]

[2]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Allegations

[3]       The specifics of the claim were set out in the narrative of the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) Form[2] and in her oral testimony. In summary, in 2004 she married a man named XXXX XXXX (XXXX) and had two daughters with him.  However, through means such as recording his conversations, the claimant learned by 2013 that XXXX is gay.  XXXX was threatened by this and told the claimant to move out, and he said that if the claimant told anyone about his sexuality, he would kill her.

[4]       XXXX divorced the claimant; the divorce was finalized in XXXX 2014, with XXXX having full custody of their children.  The claimant continued receiving phone calls from XXXX threatening that he would kill her if she tried to come near their daughters or if she told anyone about his sexuality.  In XXXX 2014, the claimant met a man named XXXX XXXX (XXXX) who lived in the United States of America (USA) and was visiting his father in Lebanon.  They began dating.

[5]       In XXXX 2015, the claimant went to the USA, and soon her mother, brothers and sister also moved there.  The claimant reconciled with XXXX, and in XXXX 2015 they were married.  XXXX applied to sponsor the claimant as a US permanent resident, but this application was denied twice, in 2018 and in XXXX 2019.  The second denial letter said that XXXX had gone on vacation with another woman.  This notice ended their marriage, and the claimant returned to her parents’ house in Michigan.

[6]       The claimant realized that she would be forced to return to Lebanon, and she was barred from making a refugee claim in the USA.  She decided to come to Canada, and on XXXX XXXX, 2019, she entered Canada irregularly by boat.  She alleges that she cannot return to Lebanon, as she fears violence and persecution by XXXX and his contacts, and because she would be at risk as a divorced woman in Lebanon.

Decision

[7]       I find that the claimant is a refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution, should she return to Lebanon, on account of being a member of a particular social group as a woman fearing gender-based persecution.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[8]       I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Lebanon is established by the documents provided, particularly a certified true copy of her passport in Exhibit 1.

[9]       I note that the claimant lived in the USA from XXXX 2015 to XXXX 2019.  However, this does not constitute a country of reference, considering the evidence that she only had temporary status in that country.

Credibility

[10]     When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness.[3] However this presumption does not apply to inferences or speculation.

[11]     I find the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore believe what she alleged in support of her claim.  She testified in a straightforward manner, and there were no relevant inconsistencies in her testimony or contradictions between her testimony and the other evidence before me.

[12]     I note that the claimant did not seek asylum in the USA when she was there from XXXX 2015 to XXXX 2019.  However, the claimant’s evidence is that she married XXXX, an American citizen, in XXXX 2015, and he sponsored her for permanent residence as his spouse.  By the time U.S. authorities denied their application for the second time, in XXXX 2019, the claimant was barred from making an asylum claim because more than one year had elapsed following her entry to the USA.  This is consistent with my understanding of USA immigration law, so this explanation seems reasonable in the claimant’s alleged circumstances, and therefore does not raise significant concerns with respect to subjective fear or credibility.  I find it was reasonable for the claimant not to apply for asylum during this time, because she married a U.S. citizen and she had status while waiting for a decision about her application for permanent residence.

[13]     The claimant disclosed documents in support of her claim.  These include, in Exhibit 5, a translated divorce certificate at pages 5-6, a translated letter from her sister XXXX at pages 48-51, a translated letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX at pages 52-54, a letter from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to XXXX at pages 8-15, and copies of counselling and psychotherapy records.  In Exhibit 6, the claimant disclosed a photograph of herself with a translation of the handwritten caption.  The divorce certificate corroborates the claimant’s relationship with XXXX, and the two letters from XXXX and XXXX both corroborate the threats from XXXX to which the claimant was subjected.  The U.S. immigration letter corroborates the claimant’s activities in the USA and the reasons she left for Canada.  The counselling and psychotherapy records also corroborate the claimant’s account of her treatment by XXXX and her fear of returning to Lebanon, and the photograph corroborates the claimant’s description of a threatening note that was left on her door in XXXX 2015.  After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

[14]     Considering the evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant endured a history of mistreatment from XXXX including physical violence, and that he divorced the claimant while keeping custody of their children.  I find that the claimant believes XXXXto be gay or bisexual, and that XXXXhas threatened the claimant multiple times, including threats to kill her, if she discusses his sexuality or if she tries to see their daughters.

Objective basis

[15]     The objective evidence provides support for the allegation that XXXXfears being perceived as a gay man in Lebanon.

[16]     Item 6.4 in the National Documentation Package (NDP) notes how the LGBTQ community is ostracised in Lebanon. While there may be growing acceptance in Beirut, the report also describes police abuses against LGBTQ individuals, raids on LGBTQ establishments, and it states that LGBTQ individuals are unable to live openly in Beirut without facing severe harassment and discrimination.  “Homosexuality in Lebanon is illegal, and social stigma of same-sex relationships persists, especially in conservative areas.”[4]

[17]     Item 6.5 in the NDP reiterates much of this and notes that LGBTQ individuals are highly vulnerable to both state and social violence because of their sexual orientation.  This report also talks about the risk of individuals who are part of the LGBTQ community to face family violence, which may include death threats, physical abuse, or being shunned.

[18]     I find, based on the objective evidence, that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on her status as a woman in Lebanon.  Gender-based violence in Lebanon is tolerated, ignored, and perpetuated in Lebanese society.  The claimant’s BOC and testimony referred to multiple incidents of verbal and physical abuse by XXXX, who also controlled other aspects of her life such as not wanting her to finish high school.  XXXXthreats continued after they divorced, even when she changed her phone number, and the claimant fears that he will one day follow through with his death threats.

[19]     This past abuse demonstrates a prospect of continued violence that can be characterized as serious, sustained, and systematic human rights violations amounting to persecution. As the claimant’s fear of persecution is based on her membership in a particular social group, her allegations form a nexus to the Convention. The objective evidence corroborates the fact that gender-based violence in Lebanon is a serious problem.

[20]     A Response to Information Request (RIR) cites an estimate that one woman a month is killed by a family member in Lebanon, usually her husband.[5] It goes on to state that gender-based violence is serious and widespread, and women are also victims of discrimination both in law and practice. Furthermore, women cannot depend on family to prevent violence as they rarely receive their family’s support. Finally, the RIR finds that customs and beliefs have ‘normalized’ violence against women in Lebanon.

[21]     The RIR indicates that Lebanese women are victims of discrimination in both law and practice. It describes how there are no official statistics on domestic violence in Lebanon and cites a UN report stating that “gender-based violence is prevalent in Lebanon in different forms, including domestic/marital physical, sexual and psychological violence.” The RIR quotes another source who states that “there was a broad consensus that domestic violence, including spousal abuse, was a serious and widespread problem in the country.”[6]

[22]     The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports that until recently, discussion of gender-based violence was subject to strong taboos, considered to be private and a matter of concern only for religious courts.[7] It indicates that there are no official national statistics on the prevalence of gender-based violence and notes that the issue of violence against women is largely ignored by local and religious authorities. The report goes on to describe how “honour crimes” are difficult to measure, but 66 women were identified as being murdered in an “honour crime” over an 8-year period.[8]

[23]     The U.S. Department of State (DOS) reports that the law criminalizes domestic violence, calls for provision of shelters, gives women the ability to file a restraining order against the abuser, and assigns special units within the ISF to receive domestic violence complaints. However, although the law provides for a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for battery, religious courts could cite personal status law to require a battered wife to return to a home shared with her abuser. Some police, especially in rural areas, treated domestic violence as a social, rather than criminal, matter.[9]

[24]     The Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) states that according to international observers, despite many advantages and acquired rights, women in Lebanon continue to face discrimination at numerous levels.[10] It reports that a Domestic Violence Law was passed in 2014, but a March 2018 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report noted that the Domestic Violence Law did not require religious courts to adhere to civil court rulings relating to domestic violence, leaving women trapped in abusive marriages; and that some religious courts issue obedience and cohabitation rulings against women, requiring them to return to the marital home.

[25]     Documents disclosed by the claimant also support the risk to the claimant as a woman in Lebanon.  One February 2021 article at pages 7-9 of Exhibit 5 notes that, according to the Internal Security Forces (ISF), “cases of domestic violence against women skyrocketed by 96% during Lebanon’s strictest lockdown.”  A December 2021 article at pages 10-15 of Exhibit 5 reported that figures shared by the ISF said that domestic violence reports in Lebanese homes doubled in the previous year.  The article quoted one lawyer who said, “We have never witnessed this much violence against women.”

[26]     The evidence reveals that domestic violence in Lebanon is widespread. Based on the past violence suffered by the claimant, the threats to harm her further and the treatment of women in Lebanon generally, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution if she returns to her country.

State Protection

[27]     I find that there is no operationally effective state protection for the claimant in Lebanon.

[28]     While the U.S. DOS report for Lebanon at item 2.1, indicates that Lebanon criminalizes domestic violence, the law provides for shelters and protections, and Lebanon is making progress in improving the police and judicial management of domestic cases, the report also states that “NGOs and activists criticized the domestic violence law, claiming that it does not sufficiently protect victims or punish abusers, who they alleged often received disproportionately light sentences.”[11]

[29]     The RIR at item 5.2 quotes a report that states that “in most cases, police ignored complaints submitted by battered or abused women.” Another source stated that “even tough

women could theoretically go to a police station in order to submit a complaint against anyone who subjects them to violence, it rarely happens because women know that they do not have legal protection against domestic violence” and that source goes on to indicate that police often do not take complaints of these women seriously.[12] This is consistent with the claimant’s testimony that following one incident when XXXXhit and threatened her in about 2014, she went to the police to make a written complaint, but they made excuses and did not help.

[30]     The OECD report at item 5.3 indicates that while some shelters exist that are run by NGOs, overall capacity to house victims is limited. The report also indicates concerns with the lengthy process required for a woman to obtain a protection order in the country.[13]

[31]     The country condition documents indicate that the government in Lebanon has taken steps with respect to gender-based violence. I considered that state protection does not mean that the state must provide perfect protection or always be successful in providing protection, but that it must be adequate. However, the country conditions documents, as a whole, indicate that those steps have not translated to operationally effective state protection.

[32]     Given the country conditions, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence establishing that there is no operationally effective state protection available to her in Lebanon.

Internal Flight Alternative

[33]     I also examined whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists for the claimant. Potential IFA locations of Tripoli and Tyre were identified at the start of the hearing.  The test is comprised of two prongs, both of which must be satisfied before an internal flight alternative can be found. The first is that the claimant is not at risk of persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the internal flight location; the second is that it is not objectively unreasonable for the claimant to relocate there. 

[34]     The second prong of the IFA test may be stated as follows: would it be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking refugee status abroad? The courts have set a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. (Thirunavukkarasu [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.))

[35]     On the evidence before me, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant, in all the circumstances, including those specific to her, to relocate to another place in Lebanon.

[36]     In North America the claimant worked XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, but as of the hearing date, she is a 39-year-old high school graduate who has never held a job in Lebanon.  The only relative she has remaining in Lebanon is a sister, who is trying to leave the country.  The claimant’s ability to support herself in another city is therefore quite limited, particularly given income inequality and other disadvantages women experience.

[37]     The claimant testified that Lebanon is a small country and anywhere she went, XXXXwould find out.  She said that XXXXhas acquaintances and contacts at the airport and in the government, and her counsel submits that eventually someone will recognize the claimant and tell XXXXof her whereabouts.

[38]     The 2021 World Factbook for Lebanon found at item 1.5 indicates that Lebanon is a small country, approximately 10K square KMs, which is described as one-third the size of the state of Maryland, and roughly 5.5M people with the majority living in the capital Beirut.[14]

[39]     The DFAT report referred to earlier considers the ability of single women such as the claimant to relocate:

DFAT assesses that the ease with which an individual is able to relocate internally depends to a large degree on their individual circumstances, including whether they have family or community connections in the intended area of relocation, and their financial situation. Internal relocation is generally easier for men and family groups. Single women, particularly those fleeing family violence, are less likely to have access to sufficient support services and are likely to face societal discrimination in the form of harassment, particularly in rural and more conservative areas.[15]

[40]     Given the size of Lebanon, the threats against the claimant, the fact that the claimant and her ex-husband are still in contact with their children, the prevalence of violence against women, and the lack of state protection noted previously, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Lebanon. Accordingly, I find that there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimant in Lebanon.

Conclusion

[41]     Having considered all the evidence, I conclude that the claimant is a refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. Accordingly, I accept her claim.

(signed) Douglas Armstrong

August 23, 2022

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[2] Exhibit 2.

[3] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.)

[4] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 1.13: ​BTI 2020 Country Report — Lebanon. Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2020.

[5] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 5.2: Family violence, including legislation, state protection and services available to victims (2011-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 22 November 2013. LBN104656.FE.

[6] Ibid.

[7] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 5.3: ​Lebanon. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019. ​Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 7 December 2018.

[8] Ibid.

[9] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 2.1: Lebanon. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020. United States. Department of State. 30 March 2021.

[10] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 1.3: ​DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 19 March 2019.

[11] Supra, footnote 9.

[12] Supra, footnote 5.

[13] Supra, footnote 7.

[14] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 1.5: ​Lebanon. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 14 September 2021.

[15] Supra, footnote 10.

Citation: 2022 RLLR 2
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 24, 2022
Panel: Douglas Cryer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hachem Hassan Fawaz
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: VC1-08109
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX, citizen of Lebanon and making a claim for refugee protection under section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       You allege the following. You owned XXXX XXXX, which were forced to close because members of Hezbollah and other religious extremist groups were accusing you of pulling women away from Islam. You did this by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and this is contrary to some people’s beliefs, that women should stay at home and wear the niqab when outside. On XXXX XXXX in 2021, you are at your client’s house in Beirut. You heard gunfire. You looked outside and you recognized one (1) of the members of Hezbollah who was a high-ranking official. When you called out to him, he was shocked that someone actually recognized him. He and his accomplices ran after you and fired gunshots towards you, but you are able to lock yourself and shelter in a building. 10 hours later when the clash ended, you were rescued by some police. The day following this clash, you received a threatening phone call from this Hezbollah member. He said he knew where your family was. He asked you to provide information about the people who sheltered you. He thought that you had taken a cellphone video of him. Out of fear, you did not return home, this based on the advice your father gave you. You fled to the United States before coming to Canada to make your refugee claim.

[3]       INTERPRETER: Excuse me, sir?

[4]       MEMBER: You fled to the United States before coming to Canada to make a refugee claim.

[5]       This is a case where we consider the Chairperson’s gender guidelines. I did not have to make any particular application in relation to credibility. I considered the guidelines throughout.

[6]       At the beginning, we listed the issues. Let us go through them now. Do you meet the definition of a Convention refugee or a person who is in need of protection? A Convention refugee is a person by reasons of a well-founded fear of persecution and for the following reasons. Race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or for political opinion as outside of your country of nationality, in this case, Lebanon, and that you are unable or by reason of your fear unwilling to avail yourself of the protection of the state. The definition for a person in need of protection does not apply here, so I will go over that.

[7]       This is my decision. I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established that you have a serious possibility of persecution if you return to Lebanon. This is based on your nexus to the Convention grounds. You belong to a particular social group, someone who fears gender-related persecution and for imputed political opinion because members of Hezbollah think that you could harm them. They think you have a video showing their violent actions.

[8]       Next question. Have you established your identity, and do you possess acceptable documentation establishing your identity? I find that your identity as a national of Lebanon is established by your credible testimony and by the documents you provided. There is a certified photocopy of your passport in Exhibit 1.

[9]       Is your claim credible? When you affirmed that you would tell the truth, this created a presumption that your allegations are true unless there are serious reasons to doubt their truthfulness. I had no reason to doubt your truthfulness. Your testimony today was consistent with what you wrote in your narrative. It is corroborated by documentary evidence, including letters of support from your father and your husband, especially.

[10]     Is your fear to your return to your country well-founded? There must be both a subjective and an objective basis for your fear. What we mean by subjective fear is that your behaviour or your actions should be consistent with somebody who fears return to their country. In this case, the incident happened in Beirut and your family warned you not to return to your village. You stayed in hiding until very shortly afterwards you fled your country. These actions are consistent with somebody who would have a subjective fear of return. Is there objective evidence? The answer is yes based on your credible testimony and current country condition reports that you provided in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 3, the National Documentation Package, contains the evidence that people who fear Hezbollah, that Hezbollah has the resources to track people they are seeking. They have the ability to exercise control outside of the traditional legal system in Lebanon and they control large portions of Lebanon. This is described in Item 1.3, the Department of Foreign Affairs report for Australia and Item 7.8, which is a Response to Information Request that shows the extent and reach of Hezbollah.

[11]     Have you provided evidence which establishes on a balance of probabilities that the authorities in your country cannot provide you with adequate protection? There is a presumption that states can protect their own citizens. This can be rebutted in a claimant’s individual circumstances. In this case, there is evidence that Hezbollah has harassed your husband and your immediate family over the months. There is evidence that the clash that you were speaking of, that there were approximately 30 people killed that day. Hezbollah has a reach and an influence that goes beyond Lebanon security forces. And like some other groups, Hezbollah has not given up their weapons. When you read these two (2) documents that I mentioned earlier, it is clear and convincing evidence that the state has an inability to protect from people who fear Hezbollah.

[12]     Concerning the treatment of women in Lebanon, the Department of Foreign Affairs report that I referred to earlier mentions that Lebanon ranks I think 133 out of 144 for treatment of women in the world. This document summarizes that women generally face discrimination. In your own case, you face direct persecution, in that you had to shut down XXXX XXXX because religious extremists did not agree XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. And it is obvious in your case that the police did not offer you adequate protection in this case.

[13]     Finally, we ask the question, would it be unreasonable for you to seek refuge in a different part of your country? Although not mentioned specifically throughout the hearing, Beirut is likely the most viable place that a person could flee to and live there. This is where you faced your own persecution, so it would be unreasonable for you to relocate to Beirut. There is a two-pronged test or two (2) tests. Could you live anywhere without a serious possibility of being persecuted? Since I find that there is inadequate protection for you in Lebanon, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[14] These are all the reasons that make you a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act, and these are the reasons your claim is accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

Citation: 2019 RLLR 77
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 20, 2019
Panel: Preeti Adhopia
Counsel for the claimant(s): Raj Sharma
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: VB8-04396
RPD Associated Number(s): VB8-04395
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000243-000249

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of [XXX] (principal claimant) and her youngest son, [XXX] (minor claimant), as citizens of Lebanon who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The principal claimant is a 48-year-old woman who was born in [XXX], but moved with her family to [XXX] in the Bekka Valley when the war broke out. In 1993, her marriage to a second cousin was arranged by her family. After a couple of months, her husband, [XXX], became abusive. He would regularly humiliate push, punch, kick, pinch and beat her. He also routinely raped her. The violence would continue even while she was pregnant. When her first child was born, the principal claimant’s husband was angered because it was a girl. This was repeated for her second and third daughters. Her husband was also controlling and demanded that the principal claimant cover her hair. When she did not do so, he taunted her about being a bad Muslim in front of guests until she finally relented.

[3]       Although the principal claimant’s fourth child was a son, [XXX] was abusive towards him too, not to mention the other children. The principal claimant gave birth to the minor claimant nine years after her last child and when he was just one week old, she was bathing him when her husband demanded lunch. When she asked him to wait a moment, he grabbed the minor claimant by the arm and threw him on the bed and beat the principal claimant. When the minor claimant did not appear able to move his arm, [XXX] begrudgingly agreed to let the principal claimant take him to a doctor. It was determined that the baby had nerve damage. The minor claimant still has difficulty moving his arm today.

[4]       [XXX] forced the principal claimant’s eldest daughter to marry a much older man when she was 20. He also started demanding that her eldest son join Hezbullah. The principal claimant and this son agreed that he would run away if his father forced him to join. The principal claimant was treated even more violently by [XXX] who insisted that she had made their son weak. She began to believe he would kill her. As a result, the principal claimant left her husband and made a complaint at the prosecutor’s office in a nearby town. There, she was advised to submit a document to a police station. She decided against doing so because her husband’s cousins work at that station.

[5]       The principal claimant decided her only option was to leave the country so she sought the help of her brother who lives in Canada. But, her Canadian visa application was denied. She decided to leave her husband anyway and asked for the help of a close friend who lives in a Beirut suburb. She travelled to her house and stayed there for two days without letting anyone else know about her whereabouts. The principal claimant rented a place near her friend’s home which she paid for with her brother’s help. She did not leave the apartment for two weeks out of fear. She then began going out a little for a month before her husband, armed with a gun, came to her door and forced her to return home where she was brutally beaten. He threatened to kill her if she tried to leave again. He even refused to allow her to see her dying grandmother and threw a knife at her to make his point.

[6]       With her brother’s assistance, the principal claimant applied for another Canadian visa and included the minor claimant in the application which was accepted. With the help of her eldest daughter and son-in-law, the claimants secretly left the country. When [XXX] discovered this, he disowned his daughter and harassed the principal claimant’s father. The claimants fear that if they return to Lebanon, they will face persecution and other risks from [XXX].

DETERMINATION

[7]       I find that, pursuant to section 96 of the Act, the claimants are Convention refugees as they have a well-founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in Lebanon.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[8]       The claimants’ identities as nationals of Lebanon are established by their passports in evidence. I am satisfied of their identities by these documents.

Credibility

[9]       At the hearing, the principal claimant gave clear, direct and succinct testimony that was natural and clearly unrehearsed. Her voice would often soften to a whisper when describing specifics of the violence, particularly in relation to the minor claimant. There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions within the claimants’ evidence that were not reasonably explained or that undermined their credibility in respect of their central allegations. The claimants submitted evidence to corroborate some of their allegations. This includes statements from the principal claimant’s brother, four eldest children, son-in-law and friend who all confirm [XXX] abuse and the principal claimant’s efforts to leave him. Also in evidence are some doctor’s notes pertaining to the claimants’ injuries and the complaint to the prosecutor. These documents substantiate the abuse suffered by the claimants. The objective country condition evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) also verifies the prevalence of domestic violence in Lebanon and the inadequate measures to address the problem. Based on the presumption of truthfulness, the principal claimant’s consistent testimony and the corroborative evidence, I accept her allegations as credible.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[10]     I find that the principal claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on her status as a woman in Lebanon. Gender-based violence in Lebanon is tolerated, ignored and perpetuated by patriarchal structures in Lebanese society. The principal claimant endured 25 years of routine verbal, physical and sexual abuse by her husband who controlled her life. When she tried to leave him, she was discovered and further brutalized. Her husband threatened to kill her in the past and reiterated his intention when he learned she had fled to Canada. The minor claimant also suffered abuse at the hands of his father starting from infancy. This past abuse demonstrates a prospect of continued violence that can be characterized as serious, sustained and systematic human rights violations amounting to persecution. As the principal claimant’s fear of persecution is based on her membership in a particular social group, her allegations form a nexus to the Convention. Since the principal claimant’s allegations are grounded in the Convention, the minor claimant derives a nexus from her claim as a family member. The objective evidence corroborates the fact that gender-based violence in Lebanon is a very serious problem.

[11]     Act for Human Rights Lebanon (ALEF) reveals a grim fact about the situation for women; Lebanon ranked 137 out of 144 countries in terms of gender equality which is evident in every-day life.² A Response to Information Request (RIR) cites an estimate that one woman a month is killed by a family member in Lebanon, usually her husband.³ It goes on to state that gender-based violence is serious and widespread and women are also victims of discrimination both in law and practice. Furthermore, women cannot depend on family to prevent violence as they rarely receive their family’s support. Finally, the RIR finds that customs and beliefs have ‘normalized’ violence against women in Lebanon.

[12]     The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) maintains that under-reporting of domestic abuse remains high, as many women are afraid to speak out about violence they experience at home for fear of being blamed for the abuse, or of bringing shame on the family.⁴ In addition, social and family pressure, as well as lack of financial independence, compels many women to remain in abusive relationships and they are sometimes instructed to return to abusive husbands by religious courts.

[13]     The Department of State (DOS) finds that while the law in Lebanon criminalizes domestic violence, “it does not specifically provide protection for women.”⁵ Despite maximum sentencing law of 10 years in prison for battery, some religious courts may legally require a battered wife to return to her home despite physical abuse. The DOS goes on to confirm that women suffer discrimination under the law and in practice. It reports that in matters of child custody, inheritance and divorce, personal status laws provide unequal treatment across the various confessional court systems but generally discriminate against women.

[14]     The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) concludes that women in Lebanon face a “high risk of societal and official discrimination, and a high risk of societal violence.”⁶

[15]     The evidence reveals that domestic violence in Lebanon is prevalent. Based on the past violence suffered by the claimants, the ongoing threats to harm them further and the treatment of women in Lebanon generally, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution if the claimants return.

State Protection

[16]     In this case, I do not find that the claimants are likely to obtain adequate state protection. The principal claimant attempted to make a complaint against her husband, but could not see it through in view of her husband’s relatives who are employed by the police. I accept that this posed a reasonable barrier for her. However, the authorities will and capacity to protect women from violence is inadequate.

[17]     DFAT finds that generally, Lebanese authorities do not provide effective protection though this depends on the area concerned. Several areas in Lebanon are not under effective state control due to the presence of Hezbullah, so the authorities are largely absent there. According to the RIR in evidence, “it is not mandatory for police officers, lawyers, physicians, social counsellors, colleagues in the workplace, neighbours, friends, clergymen, or any other potential witness of women subjected to family violence to report such abuse.” Furthermore, the RIR states that the police often do not take the complaints from women seriously and by going to a police station, women risk being ridiculed and subjected to other forms of harassment. The OECD confirms that police are reluctant to intervene in domestic violence which is considered a taboo issue. It notes that “honour crimes” are rarely prosecuted and are often reported as suicides.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[18]     I also do not find that relocation in the claimants’ circumstances is reasonable. Internal relocation is “highly dependent” on an individual’s financial constraints and connections; those with financial limitations and without connections find it difficult to relocate in Lebanon.⁷ I considered that the principal claimant is a middle-aged, high school graduate who has never held a job in Lebanon. Her ability to support herself and her son in another city is therefore quite limited, particularly given income inequality and other disadvantages women experience. As discussed earlier, there are areas that are not under state control which also hampers relocation. An IFA is not, therefore, viable.

CONCLUSION

[19]     Having considered all of the evidence, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees as set out in section 96 of the Act. Their claims are therefore accepted.

(signed)           Preeti Adhopia

September 20, 2019

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
² Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Lebanon, March 29, 2019, Item 2.8.
³ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.2 Response to Information Request (RIR) LBN104656.FE.
⁴ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.3.
⁵ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.
⁶ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.5.
⁷ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.5.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 57
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 18, 2019
Panel: Marie-Andrée Lalonde
Counsel for the claimant(s): Chelsea Peterdy
Country: Lebanon 
RPD Number: TB8-07412
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000122-000128

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The claimant, [XXX], a citizen of Lebanon, claims refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[2]       The claimant bases her claim on membership in a particular social group: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. The case is, thus, assessed according to section 96 of the IRPA.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The claimant listed in response to question (2a) of her Basis of Claim (BOC) numerous incidents, where she has been severely beaten by her husband between 1998 and 2017.

[4]       The claimant was forced to marry, [XXX], a man chosen by her aunt when the claimant turned 16 years old. The claimant made objection to this marriage to no avail. She was officially married 5 years later.

[5]       She described in response to question 2(a) of her BOC how she was verbally, emotionally and sexually abused over a period of 20 years of married life with [XXX].

[6]       She was living at her in-law’s house during the first years of her marriage. Members of her in-law’s family were also rude and abusive towards the claimant. She was hit and attacked physically by her sister-in-law and [XXX]’s parents.

[7]       The claimant indicated that she had problems getting pregnant. She was often insulted for this health difficulty. She was beaten and had to be taken to the hospital several times. She was treated at a clinic which was run by [XXX]’ s cousins. She could not make any report to the authorities. All aspects of her life were under the control of the [XXX] family. The worse incidents occurred in 2008, 2010 and 2011 and are fully described in the narrative and its addendum.

[8]       In 2014, the claimant’s sister called for assistance. She had breast cancer. The claimant was given permission to come to Canada to help her sister with her treatment and with her nephew, which needed much attention. During her first visit she overstayed her visa. She was asked to leave Canada.

[9]       During her absence her family had indicated that her husband was told by elders to change his conduct. She returned to Lebanon with her nephew.

[10]     However, soon after the claimant’s return to Algeria, her husband started to beat her up again. The claimant sent her nephew at her parent’s home. After two weeks she went to stay at her parents’ place. Her sister asked her again to return to Canada. The claimant’s brother intervened to obtain permission to leave Algeria from her husband. The claimant obtained permission to leave.

[11]     During that sojourn in Canada, the claimant learned about the possibility of making a refugee protection claim.

[12]     The claimant indicated that she learned from her mother that her husband agreed to divorce her. He would have gone twice to see an imam for the procedure. It is only after the third time that a certificate can be issued. She did not yet receive the divorce certificate. However, she understands that she can make an application for divorce from Canada. She was pleased to hear of this possibility to ensure that she would be fully free from her aggressor who has been abusing her for more than 20 years.

Credibility

[13]     I find that the claimant was credible on all the aspects of her claim. She described the ordeal that she had suffered. The claimant provided, at Exhibit 6, the mental assessment done by Dr. [XXX]. Moreover, personal documents adduced at exhibit 5 also corroborate the situation of women who are living similar domestic situations. Counsel adduced extra documents on the topic, which corroborates the lack of protection for women fearing gender-related persecution in Algeria.

[14]     Considering the quality of her testimony, which was devoid of exaggerations, incoherence or embellishments, the panel finds the claimant credible.

State Protection

[15]     The panel, following the Chairperson’s Guidelines for Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, stipulate in that a woman cannot ask protection from a state who is not respecting women’s rights and offering adequate protection to women. Such is the case in Algeria. According to Response to Information Request: Number: LBN104656.FE, Exhibit 3, item 5.2.: Sources report that Lebanese women are victims of discrimination in their country both in law and practice (AI 23 May 2013; U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 28; Human Rights Watch Jan. 2013, 4). Some sources specifically note that certain provisions of the legislation relating to the status of the person discriminate against women (ibid.; Freedom House 2013; UN 2011, 14-15). These sources also state that such legislation is linked to the religion to which the person belongs (Human Rights Watch Jan. 2013, 4; Freedom House 2013; UN 2011, 14-15). The treatment of women thus varies based on their religious affiliation (ibid.; U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 28; Freedom House 2013). These sources state that, in general terms, the legislation is such that women are disadvantaged with regard to divorce, child custody and succession (U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 28; Human Rights Watch Jan. 2013, 4; Freedom House 2013).

[16]     Moreover: Sources note that there are no official statistics on domestic violence in Lebanon (consultant 8 Nov. 2013; independent researcher 29 Oct. 2013; U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 27). However, according to a report published by the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF), “gender-based violence is prevalent in Lebanon in different forms, including domestic/marital physical, sexual and psychological violence” (UN 2012, 8). According to the Country Reports for 2012, “there was a broad consensus that domestic violence, including spousal abuse, was a serious and widespread problem in the country” (U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 27). An article published on the website of the international television network TV5 Monde states that [translation] “the project director for KAFA, a Lebanese organization combating violence against women, is of the opinion that domestic violence against women ‘is the most common form of abuse and is not subject to economic or community barriers”‘ (TVS Monde 19 Nov. 2011). In written correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a gender consultant who conducts research and writes on violence against women in Lebanon, and who taught at Lebanese University (Universite libanaise) until 2008, states that it is [translation] “well known that domestic violence (…) is underreported” in the country (gender consultant 8 Nov. 2013). The author of the TV5 Monde article also notes that [translation] “the phenomenon is more widespread than generally presumed” (19 Nov. 2011).

[17]     Sources report that it is estimated that one woman a month is killed by a family member in Lebanon (gender consultant 8 Nov. 2013; UN 8 Mar. 2012; Nasawiya 27 Feb. 2012).

[18]     Therefore, based on the documentary evidence there is clear and convincing evidence that adequate state protection is not available to the claimant.

[19]     The United States. Department of State. Lebanon. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018, (Exhibit 3, item 2.1) states the following in its most recent report:

[20]     The law criminalizes domestic violence, but it does not specifically provide protection for women. Despite a law that sets a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for battery, some religious courts may legally require a battered wife to return to her home despite physical abuse. Foreign domestic workers, usually women, often suffered from mistreatment, abuse, and in some cases rape or conditions akin to slavery. Some police, especially in rural areas, treated domestic violence as a social, rather than criminal, matter.

[21]     NGOs and activists criticized the domestic violence law, claiming that it does not sufficiently protect victims or punish abusers, whom they alleged often received disproportionately light sentences. On January 29, activists gathered in downtown Beirut to protest perceived inaction by the judiciary and security forces to respond to such cases after at least eight women died in domestic violence incidents through January. Examples included a woman whose husband shot her outside their home in front of neighbors following a dispute. On April 25, a judge issued an indictment and called for the death penalty for the husband who had fled to Syria but subsequently returned and surrendered to investigators.

[22]     Women continue to face discrimination under the 15 distinct religion-based personal status laws. Discrimination includes inequality in access to divorce, residence of children after divorce, and property rights. Unlike Lebanese men, Lebanese women cannot pass on their nationality to foreign husbands and children and are subject to discriminatory inheritance laws. Human Rights Watch, January 2018, (item 2.3, P.4)

[23]     The claimant over the years had asked for divorces several times. Each request was ignored. She had no possibility of complaining to the authorities. The claimant felt that it would make things worse.

[24]     In such a country context for women, the claimant has met the burden of proof that the state turns a blind eye on women victim of domestic violence.

IFA

[25]     Documentary evidence regarding the lack of state protection shows that it applies to the whole country, thus, confirms a lack of adequate state protection throughout Lebanon. Under such circumstances, as the State is turning a blind eye on the problems of domestic violence done to women, it is reasonable to find that state protection would not be forthcoming in her case. Therefore, there is no viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the claimant under these conditions.

Conclusion

[26]     Therefore, after finding that the claimant is credible, the objective country condition reports in evidence and the claimant’s supporting documents (exhibit 4 and 6), the claimant demonstrated objectively that she has more than a mere possibility of being persecuted upon return to Lebanon.

DECISION

[27]     The claim is accepted

(signed)           Marie-Andrée Lalonde

November 18, 2019