Citation: 2022 RLLR 38
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 20, 2022
Panel: Aurina Chatterji
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jacques Beauchemin
Country: Palestinian Occupied Territories
RPD Number: TC2-22754
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-22755, TC2-22756, TC2-22757
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the refugee claims of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and their minor children, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX.
[2] Sir and ma’am, I have considered your testimony and other evidence in this case and I am ready to render my decision orally.
[3] I note that Mr. XXXX was appointed to be the designated representative for his minor children and I have heard the claim under Rule 55.
[4] I find that you are all convention refugees as you have established a serious possibility of persecution in the Palestinian Occupied Territory, specifically in the West Bank, based on the principal claimant’s political opinion — imputed political opinion.
[5] The details of your claim are in your basis of claim forms which can be found at Exhibits 2.1 to 2.4.
[6] In short, you allege that you, Mr. XXXX, was forcibly recruited by the Palestinian Authority security forces particularly by a man named XXXX XXXX (ph) to fit a port for providing intravenous liquids to detainees who had been tortured by the Palestinian Authority.
[7] When you refused to continue doing so, you were assaulted, beaten, and threatened to be killed and tortured.
[8] Your wife was also threatened by the forces after you left Nablus to go to the USA.
[9] I find that you have all established your identities on the basis of your passports which have been issued by the Palestinian Authority and states that you were all born in Nablus in the West Bank.
[10] I note that all four of you have lived your entire lives in Nablus and as such your former habitual residence for this claim is West Bank in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
[11] With respect to credibility, I primarily asked questions of Mr. XXXX who is the principal claimant and sir, I find you to be a very credible witness and I believe what you have alleged in support of your claim.
[12] You testified without any hesitation spontaneously and were responsive to the questions I asked you.
[13] I note that a lot of your responses were entirely organic which weighs further in favor of your credibility.
[14] You were able to explain to me in candid and consistent detail that you were a XXXX XXXX who had a reputation for being able to XXXX XXXX XXXX on the first try and as such at your XXXX you were appointed to provide the XXXX XXXX for a man named XXXX XXXX (ph) who was a notorious officer with the preventive security forces.
[15] You testified that Mr. XXXX (ph) came into your XXXX several times for care for his XXXX XXXX; however, on XXXX XXXX, 2021, soldiers came to your home and took you to a detention center where you were asked to insert the XXXX XXXX for badly tortured prisoner.
[16] You explained to me that this prisoner had XXXX XXXX and you told the forces that he had required urgent hospital care; however, they refused and you were verbally and physically abused, told to do as they ordered and were threatened to not disclose this incident to anyone with the threat of cutting off your tongue.
[17] This happened on two more occasions and the third time you tried to pretend you were not home when the forces came by but the officers found you hiding in your kitchen.
[18] After you had done their bidding, the officers physically assaulted you and threatened to kill you as well if you did not comply with their orders.
[19] After this incident, you fled to your friend’s home and left the West Bank without returning back to your family’s home.
[20] You testified compellingly that as a XXXX your duty was to XXXX XXXX in need but you were being actively thwarted from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to these tortured patients or tortured prisoners and you fear that if you returned to West Bank you would end up as one of these tortured prisoners.
[21] After you were able to leave for the US, the Palestinian Authority forces came to your home and to your wife in XXXX 2021 and threatened her specifically stating that if you ever returned you would be taken directly from the airport to the Jericho Detention Center which was also known as the “slaughter house.”
[22] After this incident, you applied for an F-2 visa for your wife and children so they could join you in the US and three or four days after your wife and children arrived in the US you made your claims at the Canadian border.
[23] Now, I note that you did not make a refugee claim in the US as you testified you feared anti-Muslim discrimination there and also because you were hoping that you would be able to return to Nablus once things dies down — died down; however, you realized that this would not be possible once the officers came to your house and threatened your wife and shortly after your wife joined you in the US and you made your refugee claims in Canada.
[24] I draw no negative inference with respect to subjective fear from these delays as I find they are reasonable for the above reasons.
[25] I note as well that your testimony as well as your wife’s testimony was consistent at all times with the basis of claim forms and internally consistent as well.
[26] Your personal documents which you provided in Exhibit 4 go to the core of your claims and include evidence of your employment at the XXXX XXXX XXXX, your XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, an article that confirmed that XXXX XXXX (ph) is the XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Centre, and a witness letter and ID card from your friend with whom you stayed in hiding before fleeing the West Bank.
[27] The information contained in these documents is consistent with your BOC, your testimony, and the other information you have provided to support your claim.
[28] And having considered all of this evidence, I find that the information you presented in your testimony and documents is credible on a balance of probabilities.
[29] I am satisfied of the facts of your case that the principal claimant faces persecution under section 96 in West Bank in the Occupied Palestinian Territories based on his political — imputed political opinion while your wife and children face persecution as members of a particular social group that is family members of a political target.
[30] The NDP for the Occupied Palestinian Territories confirms the Palestinian Authority’s heavy handedness against real and perceived political opponents.
[31] Item 2.1 which is the US DOS report confirms that the PA arrested opposition supporters and other critics and tortured them in their custody.
[32] The same report notes that with respect to the Palestinian Authorities, there are credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by Palestinian Authority officials; arbitrary arrest or detention; political prisoners and detainees; and serious government corruption.
[33] Human Rights Watch reported systematic and routine abuse in Palestinian Authority prisons, particularly in the Palestinian Authority’s Intelligence, Preventive Security, and Joint Security Committee detention facilities in Jericho.
Human Rights Watch reported practices that included forces — forcing detainees to hold painful stress positions for long periods, beating, punching, and flogging.
[34] There is also evidence that the authorities in the West Bank repress dissent by arbitrarily arresting tens of thousands of peaceful — tens of hundreds of peaceful demonstrators, opponents, critics, journalists, and human rights activists and that security forces in the West Bank used excessive force during law enforcement activities. This can be found at item 2.2.
[35] Freedom House at item 2.3 reports that in 2018, evidence emerged that the Palestinian Authority has engaged in extensive electronic surveillance of lawyers, activists, political figures, and others deemed to oppose the government and that opponents are beaten and tortured in custody.
[36] Amnesty International at 2.2 also reports that in the West Bank authorities made widespread use of administrative detention without any charges or trial.
[37] Based on all the above evidence, I find that on a balance of probabilities you have established the objective basis of your claims and I further find that your family members face the same risks due to their association with you.
[38] As the Palestinian Authority are the agents of persecution, I find that there will be no State protection for you in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
[39] Item 2.1 of the NDP indicates that there is severe restrictions on the freedom of movement internally and externally for Palestinians.
[40] Palestinians remain restricted based on complex system of physical and administrative barriers such as checkpoints, road blocks, and a permit system.
[41] Item 14.5 of the NDP also indicates that mobility for Palestinians is extremely difficult and restricted and the freedom of movement between the West Bank and Gaza is nearly nonexistent.
[42] Based on this, I find that there is no viable IFA for you and your family in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
[43] I have considered your testimony and evidence and for all of these reasons, I find that you are all refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and I accept your claims.
[44] Okay, whenever you’re ready, Mr. Interpreter.
[45] CLAIMANT: Thank you very much.
[46] MEMBER: I want to thank both of you for sharing your stories with me today and I wish you the best of luck.
[47] Thank you, Mr. Interpreter, for your excellent interpretation as always.
[48] INTERPRETER: My pleasure, Madam Member.
[49] MEMBER: And thank you, counsel, as well for all your assistance.
[50] COUNSEL: It was my pleasure to work with you today. Thank you.
[51] MEMBER: Likewise, counsel, thank you. Have a good afternoon everyone. Bye-bye.
[52] COUNSEL: Thank you, bye-bye.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———