Citation: 2020 RLLR 87
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 16, 2020
Panel: Preeti Adhopia
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Anu Kumar
Country: Jordan
RPD Number: VB9-05302
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-05311, VB9-05316
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000175-000185
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of [XXX] (the “principal claimant”) and his daughter, [XXX] (the “minor claimant”), as citizens of Jordan, and his wife, [XXX] (the “associated claimant”) as a former habitual resident of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who are all 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 [XXX]-year-old Palestinian who was born to Jordanian parents in Kuwait. Since there is no birthright citizenship in Kuwait, he does not have any status there. He and his family moved back to Jordan in 1990. After finishing university in 1999, the principal claimant took a job in the United Arab Emirates and has lived there ever since.
[3] The associated claimant is a [XXX]-year-old stateless Palestinian who was born in a refugee camp in Syria. Her family moved to the UAE when she was two months old because her father was politically active and faced arrest by the Syrian government. She has lived in the UAE ever since then. In 2004, the associated claimant married the principal claimant.
[4] In [XXX] 2011, the associated claimant travelled to Syria for a visit. During this visit, the war broke out and she was detained along with other family members because authorities were seeking her uncle. They beat her and questioned her about the political activities of her father
and uncle. After this event, the associated claimant returned home to the UAE.
[5] In [XXX] 2017, the principal claimant visited Jordan. He had been having a dispute with his cousins concerning inheritance from their grandfather and wanted to resolve it. When it could not be resolved, his cousins resorted to threats to have the principal claimant jailed or killed. The principal claimant’s cousins contrived a plan to harm him by provoking an honour crime. During university, he had a relationship with a woman and proposed marriage to her. The proposal was refused by her family. The principal claimant ran into the woman on this trip to Jordan and so they decided to meet up again. His cousins photographed these encounters and provided the pictures to the woman’s husband. The cousins convinced the woman’s husband that the principal claimant was having an affair with her. The husband and his wife’s family vowed to kill the principal claimant to restore their honour. When the principal claimant complained to the police, they refused to take a report. That same day, he was attacked by three armed men who vowed to kill him. As a result, the principal claimant fled Jordan and returned home to the UAE.
[6] When the principal claimant lost his job in 2019, it cancelled the claimants’ residency status in the UAE. Not wanting to return to Jordan or Syria, the claimants came to Canada. They fear that if they return to Jordan or Syria, they will face persecution and other risks.
DETERMINATION
[7] I find that, pursuant to section 97(1) of the Act, the principal claimant is a person in need of protection as he faces a risk to his life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Jordan, on a balance of probabilities.
[8] I find that the minor claimant is not a Convention refugee as she does not have a well- founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in Jordan. I also find that the associated claimant is not a person in need of protection, in that her removal to Jordan would not subject her personally to a risk to life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. There are also no substantial grounds to believe that her removal to Jordan would subject her personally to a danger of torture.
[9] I find that the associated claimant is not a Convention refugee as she does not have a well-founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in the UAE. I also find that the associated claimant is not a person in need of protection, in that her removal to the UAE would not subject her personally to a risk to life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. There are also no substantial grounds to believe that her removal to the UAE would subject her personally to a danger of torture.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[10] The principal and minor claimants’ identities as nationals of Jordan are established by testimony and their passports in evidence.[2] The associated claimant’s identity is substantiated by her Syrian travel document for Palestinians in evidence.[3] I am satisfied of the claimants’ identities by these documents.
Country of Former Habitual Residence
[11] I have considered the test for stateless claimants as set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Thabet:
In order to be found to be a Convention refugee, a stateless person must show that, on a balance of probabilities he or she would suffer persecution in any country of former habitual residence, and that he or she cannot return to any of his or her other countries of former habitual residence.[4]
A country of former habitual residence refers to “a situation where a stateless person was admitted to a given country with a view to continuing residence of some duration, without necessitating a minimum period of residence,” and where there is a “sufficient period of de facto residence.”[5]
[12] The associated claimant is stateless. She was born in the Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria to stateless parents. Palestinians in Syria, even if they were born there, are not granted Syrian citizenship “in order to preserve their original nationality.”[6] Her travel document is not a passport and does not entitle her to the rights of a citizen, residency, or even a right of entry to Syria.[7] Although the associated claimant only made allegations against Syria, and it was submitted that Syria is her only country of habitual residence, no explanation for why this is the case was provided. I disagree that Syria is the associated claimant’s country of former habitual residence. She only resided there for the first two months of her life. Her father was the first in the family to leave Syria before the rest of the family joined him shortly after she was born. This indicates that there was likely no view to continuing residence once the associated claimant was born because she and her other family members joined her father after her birth. Also, two months out of the associated claimant’s [XXX] years does not constitute a sufficient period of de facto residence in my view. Although she visited Syria since her birth, she never lived there again.
[13] It was argued that the UAE is not a country of former habitual residence in the associated claimant’s case, but the only argument presented in support of this is that she has no status there. I note that she does not have status in Syria either, yet it was argued that Syria is a country of former habitual residence. In any case, the fact that a claimant has no status in a country is not relevant to the issue of whether or not it is a country of former habitual residence. The test for determining habitual residence has been stated above. Since the associated claimant resided in the UAE for a significant period of time – [XXX] years – with a view to continuing residency, including going to school and working, I find that the UAE is her only country of former habitual residence.
Credibility
[14] At the hearing, both claimants gave testimony that was generally clear and direct. The principal claimant provided a number of details to flesh out information in his narrative, which gave weight to his allegations. He also clarified a few issues, including that he does not know if his former girlfriend has been killed; this was speculation on his cousin’s part. 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.
[15] The claimants submitted evidence to corroborate some of their allegations. This includes 11 statements from his family, relatives, neighbors, a friend and a colleague.[8] Together, they substantiate the principal claimant’s past relationship in university, his cousins’ plan to make it look like he was having an affair, his assault, and that people continue to seek his whereabouts. The associated claimant also submitted seven statements from her family members, though they all relate to her risk in Syria, which I have found is not a country of reference. Based on the presumption of truthfulness, the claimants’ consistent testimony and the corroborative evidence, I accept the claimants’ allegations as credible.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution & Risk of Harm
Principal Claimant – Jordan
[16] In this case, I do not find that the principal claimant’s allegations form a nexus to the Convention. That is to say, he does not fear his former girlfriend’s family on the basis of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Rather, he fears them because they mistakenly believe he had an affair that violated their honour. As such, this claim must be assessed under section 97(1) of the Act.
[17] I find that the principal claimant faces a risk to his life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment on a balance of probabilities. His cousins led his former girlfriend’s family to believe that he was having an affair with her by showing them pictures of the pair meeting up. In fact, the principal claimant had not seen her in about 20 years when he ran into her and they were simply catching up on each other’s lives. Nonetheless, the principal claimant received information from a cousin he is on good terms with that other cousins had concocted the plan and the woman’s family vowed to kill him. The principal claimant was so fearful of the threat, that he pre-emptively reported that he was a potential victim of an honour crime to police. He was then beaten by three armed men who vowed to kill him to restore their honour, until bystanders intervened. After he left the country, individuals have persistently sought his whereabouts from his family.
[18] The country condition evidence on Jordan is replete with information about the serious problem of so called “honour” crimes. However, all of the same sources indicate that women are generally the victims of these crimes. Whether it is labelled an honour crime when committed against a man or not, the fact is, the woman’s husband and family are furious; they assaulted him and vowed to kill him. They are also still interested in locating him. Based on the death threats against the principal claimant, his assault, the ongoing interest of the perpetrators, and the fact that Jordan has a culture of honour crime, I find that the principal claimant faces a likely risk of section 97 harm.
Minor Claimant – Jordan
[19] The principal claimant testified that he fears that if his daughter returns to Jordan, his agents of harm might kill her. I do not find sufficient evidence that this is so. There is no indication that the woman’s family has threatened to harm his family members in order to punish him. Were this the case, his family members who have been approached for the principal claimant’s whereabouts would have accordingly been harmed. But, there is no evidence that this was the case. In addition, there is no evidence to indicate that perpetrators of honour crimes harm family members of the person who dishonoured them. Thus, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the minor claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm on this basis.
[20] Although the adult claimants did not raise any gender-based fears for their daughter if she returns to Jordan, I have nonetheless considered it in accordance with the Chairperson’s gender guidelines. I find that women in Jordan experience discrimination in a number of areas such as inheritance, divorce, child custody, citizenship, pension, social security benefits, the workplace, and, in certain circumstances, the value of their testimony in Sharia court.[9] While there is discrimination against women in Jordan, even when taken together, I do not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it rises to the level of persecution or poses section 97 risks in the minor claimant’s particular case.
[21] Overall, I find that there is insufficient evidence that the minor claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution or likely risk of harm if she returns to Jordan. As such, there is no need to assess state protection or an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in her case.
Associated Claimant – UAE
[22] I find that the associated claimant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of section 97 harm on a balance of probabilities in the UAE. She did not make any allegations against the UAE in her Basis of Claim form. At the hearing, she was asked whether she has any fear of returning to the UAE, notwithstanding the fact that she no longer holds valid residency there. She testified that she has no fear and would still be living there if her husband had not lost his job. His employment was tied to their residency because “work sponsorship is an essential pre-requisite for becoming a legal resident” and the loss of employment would result in a loss of status in the country.[10] She was also asked if she faced any kind of problems in the UAE. Again, she replied that she did not and that she was able to go to school, attend university, and work for 12 years. She had to stop working because employers give preference to citizens over foreign nationals. She was also asked about any obstacles she faced in her life. She only referred to delays in getting passports and residency permits. I do not find that any of this treatment rises to the level of persecution or section 97 risks. A requirement for non-citizens to have sponsored employment to maintain residency is unrelated to a Convention ground.[11] A state is entitled to enact and enforce its own citizenship and residency laws. While I acknowledge that the associated claimant no longer has valid residency in the UAE and would likely be denied entry, the Convention is only applicable to her circumstances if the refusal of entry is based on a Convention ground, and not related to immigration laws of general application,[12] as in the case here.
[23] Despite the fact that the associated claimant did not make allegations against the UAE on the basis of her gender, I nonetheless considered this in accordance with the Chairperson’s guideline on gender. The evidence reveals that the penal code allows men to use physical violence against female family members; that domestic violence is a serious problem; and that domestic violence laws are not enforced.[13] But, there is no evidence of violence by anyone with whom the associated claimant has had a domestic relationship. The evidence also indicates that there is gender discrimination in the law and practice with, for example, family law.[14] While there is discrimination against women in the UAE, even when taken together, I do not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it rises to the level of persecution or poses section 97 risks in the associated claimant’s particular case.
[24] Overall, the associated claimant has not adequately established that she would face a serious possibility of treatment amounting to persecution based on a Convention ground. Similarly, the evidence is not indicative of a likely risk to life, cruel and unusually treatment or punishment or torture. There is no need to assess state protection or IFA in her case either.
State Protection
Principal Claimant
[25] In this case, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the principal claimant is likely to obtain adequate state protection. He attempted to report the threat against him to the police, but they rejected it arguing that as an honour issue, it was a private matter. The officer also questioned the claimant about trying to complain against such a venerable tribe. When asked why he did not report his assault, the principal claimant testified that given the response he
received earlier, he did not believe police would assist him. He also testified that the Bani Hassan tribe is an extremely large tribe – often known as the tribe of a million people – widely known to hold positions in security and government and to be well-connected with each other. As such, he believes the police would not assist him, particularly since he is Palestinian and because the issue relates to honour.
[26] The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) notes that Palestinians face some discrimination in Jordan, and relatively few are in the public sector.[15] It states that individuals and groups have disproportionate access to power and influence, which in Jordan and the broader Arab world, is referred to as ‘wasta.’ Wasta can affect business, bureaucratic, political and social dealings. According to DFAT, most Palestinians in Jordan have little wasta when dealing with government bureaucracy. The public service is largely made up of tribes with a great deal of wasta. In DFAT’s assessment, wasta is not evidence in and of itself of official or societal discrimination against Palestinians, but a central component to understanding how Jordanian society operates. It goes on to state that:
Despite being a numerical minority, the majority of the security forces, including the police, are East Bankers. DFAT assesses that there is no official policy for security forces to make life more difficult for Palestinians. However, personality-driven discrimination by individual officers against Palestinians and others can and does occur. It is unlikely that any complaints made by Palestinians of abuse by law enforcement agencies would result in legal redress. As is the case in much of Jordan, the individual’s wasta would likely determine the quality of redress.
[27] This evidence confirms the principal claimant’s testimony indicating that because he is Palestinian, he is unlikely to obtain adequate state protection, particularly against a large and powerful tribe that occupies positions in government and police. It should be noted that according to the Department of State, although citizens may complain against police abuse and corruption, it is “rarely investigated” in Jordan.[16] It states that officials engage in corrupt practices with impunity and the use of family, business, and other personal connections to advance personal interests is widespread. Based on the principal claimant’s failed attempt to obtain protection, the profile of the agents of persecution, the low wasta of Palestinians, and widespread corruption with impunity, I find that there is no state protection
Internal Flight Alternative
[28] I also do not find that the principal claimant could live safely elsewhere in the country. Jordan is an exceptionally small country in size and population. Given the corruption in Jordan and that the claimants’ agents of harm belong to a tribe that is heavily represented in public service, they are likely to have access to government information that would reveal the principal claimant’s whereabouts. For example, they have been able to locate a number of the principal claimant’s family members to demand his whereabouts. Based on these factors, I find that there is no IFA in this case.
CONCLUSION
[29] Having considered all of the evidence, I find that the principal claimant is a person in need of protection as set out in section 97(1) of the Act. His claim is therefore accepted.
[30] I find that the minor and associated claimants are neither Convention refugees as set out in section 96, nor persons in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the Act. Their claims are therefore denied.
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Exhibit 1.
[3] Exhibit 1.
[4] Thabet v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 F.C. 21 (C.A); 48 Imm. L.R. (2d) 195 (F.C.A.).
[5] Maarouf v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration). [1994] 1 F.C. 723 (T.D.), (1993), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 163 (F.C.T.D.)
[6] Exhibit 3.2, National Documentation Package (NDP), Syria, September 30, 2019, Item 3.6 Response to Information Request (RIR) SYR104658.E.
[7] Exhibit 3.2, NDP, Item 3.6.
[8] Exhibit 4.
[9] Exhibit 3.1, NDP, Jordan, August 30, 2019, Items 2.1, 2.4 and 5.5.
[10] Exhibit 3.3, NDP, United Arab Emirates, February 28, 2020, Item 14.2 RIR ZZZ106014.E.
[11] Alusta, Khahil v. ME.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-779-92), Denault, May 16, 1995.
[12] Arafa, Mohammed v. ME.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-663-92), Gibson, November 3, 1993.
[13] Exhibit 3.3, NDP, Item 2.1.
[14] Exhibit 3.3, NDP Items 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.
[15] Exhibit 3.1, NDP, Item 13.1.
[16] Exhibit 3.1, NDO, Item 2.1.