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
DECISION
[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.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-