All Countries Syria

2020 RLLR 124

Citation: 2020 RLLR 124
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 4, 2020
Panel: R. Bebbington
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Joo Eun Kim
Country: Syria
RPD Number: TB7-20660
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-20661, TB7-20662 TB7-20663, TB7-20664
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000043-000047


On February 4, 2020, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the claim of [XXX], [XXX]and [XXX] who claim refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). On that same day, the panel rendered its oral SPLIT decision and Reasons for decision. This is the written version of the oral decision and Reasons that have been edited for clarity, spelling, grammar and syntax with added references to the documentary evidence and relevant case law where appropriate.

[1]       MEMBER:    Back on the record. I’ve considered your testimony in this claim and other evidence and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of [XXX] and [XXX] who claim to be citizens of Syria and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.[1]

[3]       I’ve appointed [XXX] as the designated representative of the minor children, [XXX] and [XXX].


[4]       You state you’ve lived in Kuwait until 2017 when your work permit was cancelled. You have no path to citizenship in Kuwait. You allege that you are being sought by government forces in Syria.

[5]       Your full allegations are set out in your basis of claim form narrative and its amendments.[2]


[6]       I note that one of the claimants [XXX] is a citizen of the United States. The board finds that the claimant has not provided any credible or trustworthy evidence to establish that he would be persecuted in the United States pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA or be at risk pursuant to Section 97 of the IRPA.

[7]       I find there is insufficient evidence to establish that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution in the US for the American minor claimant. The American minor claimant’s request for refugee protection is rejected.

[8]       I find on balance that the remaining claimants would be subjected personally to a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment should they return to Syria for the following reasons.


[9]       I find that your identities other than that for the US born claimant, as nationals of Syria is established by your testimony and supporting documentation filed including your passports, a series of Syrian country documents as well as documents pertaining to Kuwait.[3]


[10]     I find you to be credible witnesses and therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. You testified in a straightforward manner; there were no relative inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me which have not been satisfactorily explained.

[11]     When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there’s a reason to doubt their truthfulness, this is found in Federal Court case law in Maldonado.[4]


[12]     The Situation of Sunni’s in Syria.

[13]     The Assad family has ruled Syria since former president Hafez Al-Assad seized power in Ba’athist coup in 1970 his son Bashar Al-Assad, became president in 2000 following the death of his father.

[14]     The Assad’s hail from the Alawis’ an off shoot of Shia Islam that represents approximately thirteen percent of Syria’s population. Along their rise to power the Assad family placed loyal Alawis’ in key positions throughout the government including in the security intelligence and military sectors.

[15]     Both Assad regimes spent decades forging strategic ties with prominent Sunni Muslim families and religious authorities in order to consolidate their hold on political and economic power.

[16]     This fragile balance of religious ethnic and ideological identities persisted for decades until it finally collapsed in early 2011 as mass uprisings proliferated throughout.

[17]     Despite the largely non-violent nature of the anti regime demonstrations that spread across the country beginning in March of that year, the Assad government responded with a violent crackdown that represented peaceful movement, while allowing armed rebel factions to dominate the uprisings as the situation deadly devolved into a full-scale civil war later that year.[5]

[18]     The Syrian conflict has been described by a number of sources as having evolved to a largely sectarian conflict.[6]

[19]     As a consequence of the complex sectarian dynamics of the countries ongoing civil war more than five hundred thousand people have died and more than twelve million people have been displaced.

[20]     Sunni Muslims while they constitute the large majority of the population in Syria are reported as being disproportionately targeted by the government and its allied militias that are largely viewing religious affiliation as a proxy for political beliefs and assume that most Sunni’s support, supported the opposition to its rule.[7]

[21]     There were continued reports of war waged by the Alawis’ dominated government against the opposition forces and terrorist groups resulted in significant casualties among the majority Sunni population.

[22]     The government continued its widespread and systematic use of unlawful killings including the repeated use of chemical weapons and forced disappearances, torture and arbitrary detention to punish perceived opponents including civilians the majority of whom were Sunni Muslims.

[23]     Sources report that the government and its allies have killed, arrested and physically abused members of the Sunni Muslim community and have seized property of those who fled with the explicit intention of permanently displacing these individuals and change in the religious demography of these areas by populating the areas with Shia and Alwaite’s residents.[8]

[24]     Media and academic experts said the government continued to portray the armed resistance and sectarian terms saying the opposition protestors and fighters were associated with extreme Islamic factions and terrorists seeking to eliminate the country’s religious minority groups and its secular approach to governance.[9]

[25]     There is little indication in the evidence at the disposal of the panel that the situation has markedly improved since the production of these reports.

[26]     Based on the credibility of your allegations, the documentary evidence as I’ve set out above I find you have established a future risk that you will be subjected to harm.


[27]     The panel is of the opinion that in light of the above described situation presently prevailing in Syria, the Syrian state can be described as being in a state approaching complete breakdown. Consequently, the presumption to the effect that the state is capable of protecting its citizens does not apply in the present case.[10]

[28]     Hence in that content given the fact that the state is in some cases the agent of persecution the panel concludes there is clear and convincing evidence the claimants would not be able to obtain adequate protection if they would be in danger in Syria.

[29]     I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the state in light of your particular circumstances.


[30]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. Given the fact that the principal claimant’ s fear of persecution is based in his credible testimony, that he is being sought by the Syrian authorities aside from his identity as a Sunni Muslim, a consideration for an IFA in all zones under the control of the Syrian state is not relevant to the present case as it can be assumed that the claimant and his family would face persecution in all of these areas.

[31]     Moreover, the panel is of the opinion that it would not be viable in the present circumstances given the profile of the claimants to establish themselves in areas under the control of non-state actors.

[32]     On the evidence before me, I find it is not objectively reasonable in all the circumstances including those particular you for you to seek refuge in Syria for the reasons I have described.


[33]     In conclusion, based on the analysis above, I conclude that you are persons in need of protection and accordingly I accept your claims.

[34]     Thank you. You will receive a copy of my decision in the next few weeks so it will be transcribed, it will come back to my desk and I’ll sign off on it. I will put in any applicable references, correct any of my grammatical errors and it will then be provided to you.


[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

[2] Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) Form (TB7-20660), received September 6, 2017; Exhibit 7, BOC Amendment, received November 22, 2017; Exhibit 12, BOC Amendment, received January 27, 2020.

[3] Exhibit 13, Claimants’ Personal Supporting Documents, received January 27, 2020.

[4] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.); Gill v. Canada (MCI), 2004 FC 1498; Orelien v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1992] 1 F.C. 592 (C.A.); (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.).

[5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Syria, (September 30, 2019), Item 12.1.

[6] Ibid., Item 12.8.

[7] Ibid., Item 12.1.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.

All Countries Syria

2020 RLLR 81

Citation: 2020 RLLR 81
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 23, 2020
Panel: Daniel Mckeown
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tarek Abou Lebadeh
Country: Syria
RPD Number: TB9-28810
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000135-000137


[1]       MEMBER: The claimant is [XXX] she seeks refugee protection against Syria pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For the following reasons, the Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and this claim is accepted.

[2]       This claim was based on the following allegations. The claimant fears the severe conditions in Syria which have been caused by the civil war. As an elderly woman she is fearful of living alone and what will happen to her. The claimant obtained a Canadian visa on [XXX] 2018, she travelled to Canada on [XXX] 2019, and she signed her Basis of Claim on [XXX] 2019.

[3]       The Panel took into consideration the Chairpersons Guidelines on women refugee claimants when considering the process of the hearing and assessing the facts of this case.

[4]       The identity of the claimant was established on the basis of her Syrian passport, the original of which was seized by the Minister.

[5]       The Panel had no significant credibility concerns about this claim. The Panel had no significant credibility concerns about-, excuse me as the claimant explained she did not leave Syria earlier because her husband was elderly and sick so she could not leave him. He died in 2016 so the claimant started thinking about leaving then. Once she had her visa in [XXX] 2018, she continued to be fearful for her daughter who also would have been left alone so she did not leave until [XXX] 2019 when the claimant’s daughter told her to leave and not worry about her. The claimant was clear and straightforward, there were no inconsistencies in her evidence or any attempts to embellish this claim. Any concerns that the Panel had were reasonably explained or otherwise did not outweigh the significant evidence in support of this claim.

[6]       In that respect the objective country conditions as reported in the NDP for Syria are unequivocal about the dire humanitarian situation in the country. It is well known that Syria has been in the midst of a horrific civil war for nine years which has seen incredible human rights atrocities committed on all sides of the conflict. The IRB has designated Syria as a country which is eligible for determination on a paper review basis, such is the severity of the conditions there, and to be perfectly honest the Panel felt this was one such claim which wo-, should have been flagged for paper review. The most recent source in the NDP for Syria is the March 2020 U.S. Department of State report and this source makes clear that the civil war and dire humanitarian situation continues unabated to this time. Quoting the UNHCR, the USDOS report notes that it is not safe, and it does not promote the return of refugees at this time. Further, the USDOS report notes that refugee returnees are often looked upon with suspicion for suspected support of the opposition. The country conditions evidence also supports that women face a significantly elevated risk of violence because of these conditions. The Panel is satisfied therefore that the claimant fits the profile of a person at high risk upon return to Syria and the claimant does have a Convention Nexus on the basis of her gender.

[7]       Given the country conditions in Syria, the claimant has rebutted the presumption that state protection would be adequate and forthcoming as the state of war exists throughout the country, there is no location in Syria the claimant could go where she would not face a serious possibility of persecution. For all these reasons the Panel finds that this claim is credible, the claimant’s fear is well-founded, the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group in Syria. The claimant is a Convention refugee and this claim is accepted.


All Countries Syria

2019 RLLR 91

Citation: 2019 RLLR 91
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 12, 2019
Panel: Stephen Rudin
Counsel for the claimant(s): Katherine M Macdonald
Country: Syria
RPD Number: TB8-01528
Associated RPD Numbers: TB8-01583, TB8-01584
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000055-000061


[l]        [XXX], and [XXX], (the claimants) are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1

Joined claims

[2]       Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Rules, these claims for refugee protection were heard jointly.2 The principal claimant is [XXX]. Each claim was decided on its own merits, and decisions were made for each claimant.

Appointment of a Designated Representative

[3]       The IRPA requires the designation of a representative for all claimants less than 18 years of age. The children in this claim are aged three and seven.

[4]       In accordance with subsection 167(2) of the IRPA,3 and Rule 20 of the RPD Rules,4 on February 5, 2018, the RPD designated [XXX] to be the representative for the minor claimants for the purposes of this claim for refugee protection.


[5]       The complete story alleging the basis of the claimant’s fear is captured in the Basis of Claim Form (BOC),5 and amendment to the principle claimant’s BOC.6 The associate claimants rely on the principle claimant’s BOC.7 Their allegations can be summarized as follows.

[6]       The claimant alleges that she and her children fear returning to Syria. As a Sunni Muslim, and a person who was born and has lived in Saudi Arabia, she fears that if they were to return, they would be detained, tortured, and possibly face death because of her father’s affiliation as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[7]       The claimant alleges that many of her family members have been targeted by the current Syrian regime because they were perceived as being opponents of the govermnent.

[8]       Believing that they could not remain in Saudi Arabia as they had no status, and because they feared returning to Syria, the claimants, accompanied by the principle claimant’s mother-in­ law, former husband and two of her sisters-in-law, left Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on [XXX], 2018, and arrived in New York on the same day. On [XXX] 2018 the claimants flew to Buffalo, and crossing at the Peace Bridge into Canada, made their applications for refugee protection.


[9]       For the reasons that follow, the panel finds that the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, and on a balance of probabilities, would be subjected to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture upon their return to Syria.

[10]     Therefore, the panel finds that the claimants are a Convention refugees, and have a well­ founded fear of persecution or hmm should they return to Syria.


[11]     For the following reasons, on a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that the principle claimant is a citizen of Syria. She established her citizenship by providing a photo copy of her Passport.8

[12]     For the following reasons, the panel notes that the associate minor claimants are stateless. The minor claimants were born in Saudi Arabia. The principle claimant’s former husband is a Palestinian, who was working in Saudi Arabia on a temporary residence permit. According to their birth certificates, the minor claimants were born in Saudi Arabia.9 Although the habitual residence of the minor claimants was Saudi Arabia, they had no entitlement to permanent status or claim against Palestine. Moreover, the minor claimants hold Palestinian Passports and travel documents, which limited their entry to Syria.10


[13]     In assessing this claim, the panel focused on the credibility of the claimants’ allegations of the risk of persecution or harm they might face upon their return to Syria because of their perceived political opinion.

[14]     The panel is cognizant of the difficulties faced by the claimant in establishing their claims. These include cultural factors, the environment of the hearing room, and the stress inherent in responding to oral questions through an interpreter. The panel has taken these considerations into account in arriving at its determination.

[15]     For the following reasons, on a balance of probabilities, the panel found the principal claimant to be a credible witness, and therefore believed what she alleged in support of their claims. Although her testimony sometimes focused on the current situation in Syria and had to be reminded to address her specific fear as it related to a nexus to the IRPA, she testified in a straight forward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in her testimony, or contradictions between her testimony and the other evidence before the panel.

[16]     The claimant testified that her father and brother were believed to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and as early as 1980 fled Syria to live in Saudi Arabia, where he claimant was born. She further testified that her brother was wanted by the Syrian authorities because of the possible family link to the Muslim Brotherhood, and his avoidance of compulsory military service. Further, when the claimant entered Syria for her wedding celebration in 2011, the claimant testified that she was suspected at the border of being involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, and believed that she was fortunate not to have been arrested.

[17]     For the following reasons, on a balance of probabilities, the objective evidence indicates that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimants would face persecution or harm if they were to return to Syria.

[18]    The United States Department of State 2018 report notes that:

[t]here continued to be a significant number of reports of abuse of children by the Syrian government… [There are] regular reports of detention and torture of children younger than age 13, in some cases as young as 11, in government detention facilities.11

[19]    The International Religious Freedom Report indicates that:

… [m]embership in the Muslim Brotherhood or “Salafist” organizations is illegal in Syria and punishable to different degrees, including by imprisonment or death.


The personal status law on divorce for Muslims is based on an interpretation of sharia implemented by government-appointed religious judges. In interreligious personal status cases, sharia takes precedence. A divorced woman is not entitled to alimony in some cases; a woman may also forego her right to alimony to persuade her husband to agree to the divorce. Additionally, under the law, a divorced mother loses the right to guardianship and physical custody of her sons when they reach the age of 13 and of her daughters at age 15, when guardianship transfers to the paternal side of the family.


An individual’s birth certificate records his or her religious affiliation. Documents presented when marrying or traveling for a religious pilgrimage also list the religious affiliation of the applicant.12

[20]     The same document noted that, “[t]here were continued media reports the government and its Shia Muslim militia allies [consisting mostly of foreigners] killed, arrested, and physically abused members of opposition groups which were predominantly Surmi Muslim.”13

[21]     The panel has chosen to rely on the documentary evidence of the Syria National Documentation Packages (NDP), because it originates from a variety of reputable independent sources, which, reasonably, is expected to be knowledgeable with respect to the situation in Syria. The documentary evidence is seen as reliable, probative, detailed information, so as to provide the panel with a thorough understanding of the political situation in Syria.

[22]     On the basis of the totality of the evidence and the cumulative findings noted above, in the specific instances of this case, the panel finds that the claimants have satisfied their burden of establishing more than a mere possibility that they would face persecution should they return to Syria. Based on the forgoing reasons, the panel finds that because of the principle claimant’s perceived relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood, there is more than a mere possibility that the claimant would face persecution or harm should she return to Syria.

[23]     In regard to the minor claimants, for the following reasons the panel finds that their claims for refugee protection should be accepted. They have never lived in Syria, and with their immediate family now in Canada, there is no one in Syria to care for them. Further, in a decision of the Honourable A.W.J. Sullivan of the Ontario Court of Justice, the principle claiman) has been granted joint custody of the minor claimants.14 In making this finding, the panel is guided by the principle expressed in Baker, that although not determinative, the best interests of the child is an important factor in humanitarian and compassionate considerations that must be given substantial weight.15


[24]     Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees, and their claims are accepted.

(signed)           Stephen Rudin

November 12, 2019

1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Refugee Protection Division (RFD) Rules SOR/2012-256 [RPO Rules], Rule 55.
3 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, section 167(2).
4 RPD Rules, supra, footnote 1, Rule 20.
5 Exhibits 2-4, Basis of Claim Forms (BOCs).
6 Exhibit 10. Amended BOC.
7 Exhibit 2, BOC – TBS-01528.
8 Exhibit 1, Package of Information ftom the Referring CBSA/CIC, Copy of Passport.
9 Exhibit 9, Personal Disclosure, at pp. 19-20 and 23-24.
10 Exhibit 8, Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) Materials, Copies of Palestinian Passports.
11 Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Syria (March 29, 2019), item 2.1.
12 Ibid., item 12.1.
13 Ibid.
14 Exhibit 9, Personal Disclosure, at pp. 38-41.
15 Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817.

All Countries Syria

2019 RLLR 86

Citation: 2019 RLLR 86
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 5, 2019
Panel: D. Young
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ali Dakakni
Country: Syria
RPD Number: TB7-16920
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000032-000036


[1]       This is the decision in the claims of [XXX] (the principal claimant), [XXX] (the principal claimant’s spouse), [XXX] and [XXX], (the minor claimants). The claimants are making claims against Syria, seeking Canada’s protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 The principal claimant was appointed Designated Representative for the minor claimants. A third minor claimant, citizen of the United States, (U.S.), had initially made a claim with the rest of the family but that claim was withdrawn before the hearing.

[2]       The claimants have lived in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) since 2016. They had residence permits based on the principal claimant’s employment. The principal claimant was, according to documents filed, a valued employee of [XXX] in Dubai.2 Prior to that, he had worked for the same company in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The family was planning to re-locate to Canada for the principal claimant to take a job with [XXX] in Toronto. The family’s application to the Canadian government for a visa was refused because “the LMIA/Job Offer which you have provided in support of the application is fraudulent”.3 A subsequent application for a visa was also refused. The principal claimant alleges that because he was leaving his job in UAE, his employer had replaced him and refused to extend his employment. As a result, the claimants would be required to leave UAE. The only country they had a right to live in was their country of nationality, Syria. The family fears targeting due to their perceived opposition to the Assad regime and that the principal claimant would be forced to serve in the Syrian army. They had been issued Non-immigrant visas to the U.S. in 2015 valid until 2017. They travelled to the U.S. on [XXX] 2017. They crossed the Canada­U.S. border ten days later, outside of an authorized port of entry and made refugee claims.

[3]       The panel had concerns about the evidence regarding the claimants’ decision to leave the UAE. At the end of the hearing, counsel was given the opportunity to submit representations in writing. Along with his representations, counsel submitted documents regarding this issue along with documents about the U.S. administration’s statements regarding refugees from Syria and the text of a tweet from the Canadian Prime Minister. As these were relevant to issues raised by the panel in the hearing, the documents were entered into evidence.4


[4]       Certified copies of the claimants’ current Syrian passports were included with the referral.5 These are sufficient to establish the claimants’ identity and nationality.

Credibility and Subjective Fear

[5]       The panel stated in the hearing that credibility and subjective fear were issues in this claim. Specifically, on credibility, the truthfulness of the claimants’ evidence regarding why they had left the country they were living in, where they had ongoing resident status, even though that status was not permanent. Had the status been permanent, the claims would likely have been excluded from consideration in accordance with Article 1E. As it stands, the claimant’s decision to leave a country where they had status becomes a consideration in assessing their subjective fear. Further, the claimants’ decision not to make an asylum claims in the U.S. also gives rise to an issue of whether the claimants lack subjective fear and also affects the assessment of the credibility of their allegations of fear of return to Syria.

[6]       The documents submitted by counsel post-hearing give a detailed explanation of the claimant’s efforts to re-locate to Canada and set out more clearly the sequence of events. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that when the claimants left the UAE, they were likely facing removal from that country.

[7]       Regarding the decision to pass through the U.S. and make a claim in Canada, the evidence is not as convincing. The claimants allege that the current president’s statements regarding a Muslim ban was the reason and that therefore they had no choice but cross over to Canada. The panel notes that the claimants had visas permitting them to enter the U.S. and had been allowed entry to the U.S. during the time of the president’s statements regarding banning Muslims but had been refused visas to travel to Canada. This undermines the claimants’ assertion that they would be more welcome in Canada than the U.S. Counsel in his submissions referred to the Canadian Prime Minister’s tweet.  The statements does re-affirm that Canada accepts refugees fleeing risk of persecution. The statement does not say that persons who are already in safe countries should leave those countries and instead come to Canada. That said, even though the panel does not find that the claimants would be unsafe in the U.S., their belief is not so completely unreasonable that the panel can find that it indicates a lack of subject fear sufficient to undermine their claim.

Objective Basis

[8]       With regard to the objective support for the claimants’ allegations of the risk they face in Syria, this is found in the documentary evidence. Political opinion in Syria is imputed to citizens based on their locality or family connections. The International Protection Considerations with Regard to People Fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic, Update IV prepared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) states:

A particular and deepening feature of the conflict is that different parties to the conflict frequently impute a political opinion to larger groups of people, including families, tribes, religious or ethnic groups or whole towns, villages or neighbourhoods, by association. As such, members of a larger entity, without individually being singled out, become the targets for repercussions by different actors, including government forces, ISIS, and anti­government armed groups, for reason of real or perceived support to another party to the conflict.6

[9]       Refusal to take part in the actions of the Syrian army, in the current circumstances, is an expression of political opinion under the Convention definition and the actions which likely would be taken against the claimants would come within the definition of persecution.

Internal Flight Alternative and State Protection

[10]     Syria is embroiled in a multi-dimensional, multi-national war which affects the entire country and has led to extreme sectarian violence. I find that the current security situation in the country is such that there is no access to state protection or a viable internal flight alternative for this claimants at the current time.


[11]     Having considered all of the evidence before me, I find the claimants to be Convention refugees and I accept the claims.

(signed)           D. Young

March 5, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended.
2 Exhibit 10.
3 Emphasis added.
4 Exhibit 11.
5 Exhibit 1.
6 Exhibit 6, NDP for Syria (28 September 2018), item 1.12.