Citation: 2020 RLLR 135
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 24, 2020
Panel: L. Bonhomme
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Talia Joundi
Country: Jordan
RPD Number: TB9-13034
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-13090, TB9-13117, TB9-13128
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000118-000127
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The claimants, [XXX]and[XXX] are seeking refugee protection from Jordan pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).[1]
[2] [XXX] is the principal claimant and he is married to [XXX] the associate claimant. Their children are [XXX], and [XXX] the minor claimants. The principal claimant was appointed as the designated representative of the minor claimants.
Determination
[3] The panel finds the principal claimant to be a person in need of protection within the meaning of s.97(1) of the IRPA.
[4] The panel does not find the associate claimant or minor claimants to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Allegations
[5] The details of the claimants’ allegations are more fully set out in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim Form (“BOC”) and amended BOC.[2] In short, the principal claimant’s cousin murdered a teenaged neighbour belonging to another tribe. As a result, the principal claimant and his family are being pursued for a revenge killing by the tribe.
[6] The oldest minor claimant, [XXX], is a citizen of the United States of America. The claimants do not make any allegations against the United States of America.
Analysis
Identity
[7] The principal, associate and youngest minor claimants’ personal identities as citizens of Jordan have been established by the principal claimant’s testimony and the certified true copies of their Jordanian passports and Canadian visas on file.[3]
[8] The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the principal, associate and youngest minor claimants are who the say they are and that the country of reference for them is Jordan.
[9] The personal identity of the oldest minor claimant, as a citizen of the United States of America, has been established by the principal claimant’s testimony and the certified true copy of his passport issued by the United States of America on file.[4]
[10] The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the oldest minor claimant is who he says he is and that a country of reference for this claimant is the United States of America.
Credibility
[11] The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. In making this assessment, the panel has considered all the evidence, including the oral testimony and documentary evidence entered as exhibits as well as post-hearing disclosure. The principal and associate claimants both testified and although there were some inconsistences between the principal claimant’s testimony, the BOCs, and the documentary evidence, the panel finds that there is sufficient documentary evidence and credible testimony going to the core of the claim to overcome the inconsistencies.
[12] The claimants allege in the BOCs that in [XXX] 2016, the principal claimant’s cousin, [XXX] murdered a seventeen year old named [XXX] by shooting him with a gun resulting in his death eight days later. The cousin and the victim were neighbours in the [XXX] neighbourhood of Irbid. The claimants submitted two news articles closely corroborating the details of the murder, including the timing and location and naming the individuals involved.[5]
[13] However, the panel does note that there are some inconsistencies between the news sources’ accounts of the aftermath and the claimants’ testimony and BOCs. According to the news reports, the cousin’s [XXX] and the tribe’s hosting place were burned that day, after the victim’s death was announced. According to the BOCs, the principal claimant began receiving weekly phone threats which increased over time and both he and the associate claimant received warnings from neighbours of threats against their lives. At some point, the principal claimant received face to face threats while working, as his job involved [XXX] in the [XXX] neighbourhood. The BOCs allege that the threats turned into action around [XXX] 2016 when the cousin’s store, the clan’s reception home, and the cousin’s brothers’ homes were set on fire. The BOCs do not mention any fires before that time.
[14] At the hearing, the principal claimant testified that he learned of the shooting that same day as tribe members started to burn things and fire shots. When asked for specifics of what was burned, the principal claimant listed the cousin’s house, two reception homes, and stores. The fires went on for a week after the shooting and after the victim died. This was repeated in [XXX]. When asked to explain this, the principal claimant described how tribe members would set fire to the building, burn it, put out the fire and then burn it again. The principal claimant was asked why he did not indicate in his BOCs that the fires happened the same day as the shooting and he responded that he did not know. When asked why the BOCs only mention fires in [XXX] 2016, the principal claimant responded that the fires increased then. Although the panel does not find that the principal claimant’s explanations are compelling, the panel accepts that there were some fires related to the murder.
[15] Aside from the timing of the fires, both claimants’ testimony was consistent with the BOCs and with one another. The principal claimant was able to adequately describe in detail the threats he received, both on the phone and in person, and how they changed over time. Furthermore, the claimants have produced a number of documents corroborating various aspects of their claim.
[16] The principal claimant alleges in his BOCs that he is being targeted because he was particularly close with his cousin and in his testimony, he added that he is a young man distinguishable in the town. The principal claimant is university educated and active in the humanitarian field, having been employed for several years with the [XXX], and later the [XXX]. The claimants submitted a certificate indicating the principal claimant was awarded a [XXX] of [XXX] in 2009 and letters confirming his employment with the [XXX] from [XXX] 2013 to [XXX] 2017 and with the [XXX] from [XXX] 2017 to [XXX] 2018.[6] The claimants submitted a letter from the principal claimant’ s father expressing his fear for his son’s life and that his son’s life is particularly being threatened due to his relationship with the perpetrator of the shooting.[7] The claimants also submitted a letter from the leader of the [XXX] tribe dated [XXX] 2019 confirming the risk of revenge killing to the family members of [XXX] generally, including the claimants.[8]
[17] The claimants allege that the motivation for the agents of persecution to pursue them increased when another local tribe enacted a revenge murder against another tribe in a similar blood murder situation, a year (in [XXX] 2018) after a sulha (truce) had been reached. The claimants submitted newspaper articles from [XXX] 2017 describing a truce between the two tribes due to the killing of one of the tribe members after a parking dispute. The claimants also submitted a travel advisory from the U.S. Embassy in Jordan in 2017 recommending that U.S. citizens avoid travel to the [XXX] area in Irbid due to violent incidents, including arson and fatalities in [XXX] 2017.[9] At the hearing, the principal claimant explained how word had spread that another tribe had exacted revenge whereas the [XXX] tribe had not yet done so. He testified convincingly that his fear was heightened as a result.
[18] The claimants resided in the [XXX] neighbourhood. According to the principal claimant’s testimony, it was about a one to two minute walk from where the murder occurred. The claimants moved on at least two occasions to try to ensure their safety; however, the threats followed them. The claimants submitted two tenancy contracts: one from [XXX] 2016 to [XXX] 2017 for an [XXX] address and the other from [XXX] 2018 for an address behind the [XXX] Hospital and close to [XXX] College.[10]
[19] The claimants alleged that in [XXX] 2019, threatening messages to the principal claimant were received on Facebook and that the principal claimant’s brother continues to receive threats. The claimants submitted communications to the principal claimant from “[XXX]” and from the principal claimant’s brother corroborating this allegation.[11]
Objective Basis
[20] Sources in the National Documentation Package for Jordan confirm that revenge is part of tribal practices, including revenge killing. According to an article entitled, “Tribal Customary Law in Jordan,” when a murder takes place in a village, the male members of the victim’s family have the right under Bedouin law to murder a male member of the perpetrator’s family. The victim’s family will often choose the most respected member of the perpetrator’s family so as to bring shame on the perpetrator within his own family.[12]
[21] Counsel for the claimants submitted numerous news articles attesting to the current prevalence of revenge practices in Jordan, including killings and retaliatory fire-setting.[13]
[22] In considering the mostly credible testimony from the principal and associate claimants, the ample corroborating documentary evidence, and the country conditions, the panel believes what the claimants have alleged in support of the claim in relation to the principal claimant and finds that a personal risk to the principal claimant’s life of a revenge killing by the [XXX] tribe in Jordan is established, on a balance of probabilities.
[23] The panel finds that there is not sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that there is a personal risk to the lives, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, of the associate and youngest minor claimant. There is no evidence of any threats to the youngest minor claimant, a two year old girl. The principal claimant testified emphatically that the tribe would not pick a child to exact revenge upon. The only evidence in relation to the associate claimant are warnings from neighbours of hearing of threats against their lives which the panel finds to be too vague. The principal claimant’s own evidence was that he was specifically targeted due to his relationship with his cousin, his gender and profile in the community, clearly distinguishing him from his wife who is not alleged to have enjoyed a similar relationship with the cousin. There is no evidence in the country conditions of females being targeted for revenge killings for murder.
[24] The panel does not find that there is any evidence of a nexus to a Convention ground in relation to the associate claimant and youngest minor claimant and therefore the panel finds that the associate claimant and youngest minor claimant are not Convention refugees.
State protection
[25] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their own citizens, except in situations where the state is in a state of complete breakdown. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant has to provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect its citizens.
[26] The claimants’ evidence was that the principal claimant consulted with some friends who work in the police force and was told there was nothing that could be done because he could not be given a personal security guard. The claimants submitted a document from the police directorate in Irbid dated [XXX] 2016 indicating that the principal claimant had requested protection for himself and his family from the [XXX] tribe but that he could not be provided with private protection and that if the identities of the individuals making the threats was known, further steps could be taken.[14]
[27] In this case, tribal dispute resolution was invoked; however, the process was ineffective to the principal claimant. The claimants submitted a document that was translated as “deed of tribal truce by admission” issued February 3, 2016 describing a ja’ha between the Al-Rawabdeh tribe and the Al-Irjoob tribe due to the shooting on January 23, 2106 of Ayhan Ali Salah Al-Rawabdeh by Ibrahim Saleh Abdelhafiz Al-Irjoob.[15]
[28] Sources in the National Documentation Package indicate that although tribal law in Jordan was abolished in 1975, tribal dispute resolution has come to forma prevailing part of the Jordanian culture and customs, despite the fact that it no longer constitutes a part of the Jordanian legal system. This is especially so in relation to blood crimes, honour crimes and conflicts between families.[16] In practise, the legal system defers to tribal customs and practises. Although the tribal dispute resolution process operates outside of and alongside the legal system, the state is often complicit and even active in tribal dispute resolution processes (e.g. police often supervise jalwa, atweh may be supervised by state security forces, state-appointed officials may form part of a jaha, state or members of the royal family may act as waseet).[17]
[29] Based on the evidence before the panel, the panel finds that in this case the state is unwilling or unable to protect the principal claimant effectively.
[30] The country information is clear and convincing evidence that rebuts the presumption that adequate state protection is available to the principal claimant in Jordan. The panel therefore finds on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant cannot access adequate state protection in Jordan.
Internal Flight Alternative
[31] The panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the principal claimant. Jordan is a small country. The tribe pursuing the claimants is a powerful and politically influential tribe, counting a former Jordanian Prime Minister as a member. Although the tribe is based in [XXX], members live outside the village. Given the profile of the tribe, the agents of persecution would likely have no difficulty being able to locate the principal claimant throughout the country.
[32] The panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the principal claimant’s life would be at risk throughout Jordan and therefore finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative.
Conclusion
[33] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds the principal claimant to be a person in need of protection from Jordan and therefore his claim is accepted. The panel finds that the associate claimant and youngest minor claimant are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection from Jordan and therefore their claims are denied.
[34] The claimants did not make any allegations of persecution, risk of persecution or risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in relation to the United States of America in the BOCs. When asked at the hearing what the principal claimant feared for his son in the United States of America, the principal claimant responded that when they lived there, two Muslim girls and a young man were murdered close to where they were living in North Carolina. The principal claimant alleged that it was a racist crime. Without any other evidence, the panel does not find that there is sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to establish that the oldest minor claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution, nor on a balance of probabilities would he face a risk to life or qa risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture, if he returned to the United States of America.
[35] The panel finds that the oldest minor claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection from the United States of America and therefore his claim is denied.
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended.
[2] Exhibit 2: Basis of Claim Form (BOC) TB9-13034 and Exhibit 11: Amended Basis of Claim Form (BOC) TB9-13034 dated January 10, 2020.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Exhibit 1: Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.
[5] Exhibit 9: Claimant’s personal documents received January 5, 2020.
[6] Exhibit 8: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 3, 2020 (personal documents X2 and country conditions X1).
[7] Exhibit 12: Claimants’ late disclosure (personal document).
[8] Exhibit 8: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 3, 2020 (personal documents X2 and country conditions X1).
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Exhibit 6: National Documentation Package for Jordan version August 2019, Item 9.1.
[13] Exhibit 10: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 10, 2020 (personal documents X1 and country conditions X1).
[14] Exhibit 8: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 3, 2020 (personal documents X2 and country conditions X1).
[15] Exhibit 10: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 10, 2020 (personal documents X1 and country conditions X1).
[16] Exhibit 6: National Documentation Package for Jordan version August 2019, Item 9.1.
[17] Ibid, Item 5.10.