Citation: 2020 RLLR 38
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 21, 2020
Panel: T. Nicholson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary Jane Campigotto
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: TB8-25424
Associated RPD Number: TB8-25462
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000058-000065
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The claimants [XXX] and [XXX] purport to be stateless Palestinian refugees. They have claimed refugee status pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act).1
DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE
[2] The claimant [XXX] acted as the designated representative for the minor claimant, [XXX]. He confirmed his knowledge of his responsibilities in this regard prior to the hearing.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimants’ allegations are set out in their Basis of Claim forms (BOCs).2 They allege they are at risk of persecution in Lebanon due to their Palestinian ethnicity.
[4] The male claimant testified being born in Lebanon, but moving to the United Arab Emirates as an adult, where he created a business [XXX]. The claimant testified to mistakenly arrested in [XXX] on suspicion of being a [XXX] due to confusion of his name with that of a [XXX], which resulted in his name being flagged and him being routinely harassed and threatened in Lebanon on his visits if he did not pay a bribe.
[5] In [XXX] 2017, the claimant was questioned by UAE intelligence regarding his connections to refugee camps in Lebanon. After refusing to work with them, the claimant attempted to move to Lebanon, but testified to being frightened by an attack by militants.
[6] The claimants arrived in Canada on valid visas on [XXX] 2018.
DETERMINATION
[7] The panel concludes that the claimants are Convention refugees.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[8] The panel was provided with true copies of their Lebanon issued Travel Documents for Palestinian Refugees,3 as well as documents relating to their residency in the UAE.
[9] The panel finds that the documents, and the testimony of the claimants, are sufficient to establish their identities on a balance of probabilities.
Countries of Habitual Residence
[10] The claimants are stateless Palestinians. Statelessness per se does not give rise to a claim to refugee status: the claimant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on a convention ground or that they possess a s.97(1) risk in a country of former habitual residence.
[11] The concept of “former habitual residence” implies a situation where a stateless person was admitted to a country with a view to enjoying a period of continuing residence for some duration. The claimant does not have to be legally able to return to a country of former habitual residence. The claimant must have established a significant period of de facto residence in the country in question. The claimants must establish that they are persecuted in one country of former habitual residence, and are unable to safely return to any other.4
[12] The Federal Court of Appeal established that a broad and liberal approach must be taken when assessing a proposed country of former habitual residence: there is no minimum period of residence required in that country, the analysis should not be unduly restrictive, the claimant does not need to be able to legally return; and the claimant must have established some significant period of de facto residence there.5
[13] The male claimant and minor claimant lived for most of their lives in the UAE. The panel finds that the UAE is a country of habitual residence for them.
[14] The claimants were able to legally enter and return to Lebanon, and if they had not gone to the United States and then Canada, they likely would have been required to return to Lebanon. The male claimant was born in Lebanon, the claimants presented documents that were provided to the claimants by the government of Lebanon, and the male claimant testified to having extensive family in Lebanon, and testified to intending to live in Lebanon with the minor claimant permanently.
[15] The panel finds these circumstances are significant and substantially connect the claimants to Lebanon, and that Lebanon is a country of habitual residence for the claimants.
Nexus
[16] The panel finds that the claimants have established a nexus to the convention, namely through their ethnicity as stateless Palestinians in Lebanon.
Credibility
[17] The panel had serious issues with regard to the male claimant’s credibility.
[18] The male claimant was, at times, flippant and dismissive of repeated questions from the panel. The claimant caused a considerable procedural difficulty at the first hearing date, when he admitted that he did not understand English to the extent required to understand his BOC without interpretation.
Incident in Lebanon
[19] The claimant indicated that he was attacked by militants on his return to Lebanon in 2018. He testified that two men on motorcycles stopped the car he was travelling in on [XXX] 2018, seized him, beat him, stated they were from Hezbollah and would follow him wherever he went.
[20] It was pointed out to the claimant that his BOC did not mention that the attackers threatened the claimant, did not mention the claimant was driving a car, did not mention that the attackers were on motorcycles, and did not mention the attackers had mentioned they were members of Hezbollah.
[21] The claimant responded that he did not remember the situation very well.
[22] The panel finds it unlikely that the claimant, given the claimant testified it was his only physical interaction with persecutors, would make so many mistakes in his description.
[23] The panel rejects the claimant’s explanation for the omissions, and draws a negative inference with regard to his credibility.
[24] Given the vast difference between the male claimant’s description of the incident in his BOC and in his testimony, the panel finds that the incident did not happen and that the claimant is not pursued by Hezbollah.
Other Incidents in Lebanon
[25] However, the panel finds that the claimant has, through his testimony, established that he is a stateless Palestinian.
[26] The claimant testified to having to pay a bribe every time he went through the airport, and to having family members who died in the camps from intrareligious warfare, and to having had difficulties as a businessman working in Lebanon due to his statelessness. It was also made clear that the minor claimant would have difficulty obtaining schooling and social services due to her status as a stateless Palestinian.
[27] The panel accepts that the claimants are stateless Palestinians and the claimant’s description of the incident of 1983 and the resulting issues, which were presented in detail and made clear by the claimant’s testimony. The panel finds that the claimants have been subject to discrimination that, in its severity, amounted to persecution due their status as stateless Palestinians.
United Arab Emirates
[28] The claimant credibly testified that, due to his last name, he was questioned by UAE security forces, and that he was asked to offer intelligence to UAE security. The claimant refused, which he testified put a mark on his security record.
[29] Through documentary evidence,6 the panel finds that the claimant has established his status has been revoked in the UAE and finds that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be unable to return given his security issues.
SUBJECTIVE BASIS
[30] The male claimant indicated he was afraid of returning to Lebanon due to the profile given to him by his last name and the treatment he suffered. The panel finds that the claimants have established a subjective fear of persecution.
OBJECTIVE BASIS
[31] Objective evidence indicates that the claimants’ options as stateless Palestinians would be limited to either living in one of the refugee camps near Beirut, the conditions of which are described by the United Nations as “deplorable,”7 or to attempt to live in general Lebanese society without familial connections, which objective evidence indicates is bereft of all but menial employment and features extremely limited housing opportunities, as well as reduced access to social services and healthcare.8
[32] Militant groups are common in Palestinian refugee camps and frequently engage in violent conduct against fellow Palestinians within the camps, including arrest and kidnapping of outsiders in camps without judicial oversight and without protection by Lebanese authorities.9 Objective evidence indicates that this is a risk regularly faced by stateless Palestinians in Lebanon.10
[33] The panel finds that the claimants have an objective basis for their claim of persecution in Lebanon as stateless Palestinians, and that they would face a well-founded fear if they were to return there, given their lack of connections, the primary claimant’s age, and their status as stateless Palestinians.
STATE PROTECTION
[34] The state is presumed able to provide adequate protection to its citizens. Therefore, claimants have the duty to seek state protection before seeking protection in Canada. However, in certain circumstances, it would be objectively unreasonable to expect a claimant to do so. Furthermore, the protection available to a claimant may not be adequate given their specific circumstances.
[35] Lebanon does not provide state protection in Palestinian camps.11 Objective evidence notes that the security situation is generally poor throughout Lebanon for Palestinian refugees,12 and there is a “crisis of governance” in Palestinian camps that means Peoples Committees are generally seen as being unable to protect their constituents from harassment from Lebanese forces harassing their residents.13
[36] The panel finds that the claimants have rebutted the presumption that adequate state protection exists for them in Lebanon with clear and convincing evidence.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)
[37] The claimants were asked if they would be able to live elsewhere in Lebanon, and were given the example of Beirut. The panel finds that the claimants would face persecution as stateless Palestinians throughout Lebanon.14
[38] The panel finds that the claimants would not have an IFA in all of Lebanon.
CONCLUSION
[39] The panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon and can not return to the United Arab Emirates.
[40] The panel accepts their claims.
(signed) T. Nicholson
January 21, 2020
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.
3 Exhibit 1.
4 Thabet v. MC.I., [1998] 4 FC 21 (F.C.A.).
5 Maarouf v. Canada, [1994] 1 F.C.R. 723 (F.C.A).
6 Exhibit 5, pages 32-37.
7 Ibid., item 13.1.
8 Ibid., item 13.1.
9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Lebanon (29 March 2019), item 13.1.
10 Ibid., item 13.2.
11 Ibid., item 13.1.
12 Ibid., item 13.5.
13 Ibid., item 13.1.
14 Ibid., item 13.1.