Citation: 2022 RLLR 75
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 18, 2022
Panel: Kevin Cantor
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Sherin Aboudaba Besaiso
Country: Jordan
RPD Number: TC1-19242
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: So this is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division for the claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and his file number is TC1-19242.
[2] He is a 26-year-old male, he is claiming to be a citizen of Jordan. He is seeking refugee protection in Canada pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render a decision in this matter orally. The written decision will be sent to you shortly and may be amended for spelling and grammar purposes.
[3] Having considered all the evidence brought forward in this matter, I find that you are a person in need of protection pursuant to Section 97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and my reasons are as follows:
[4] I think he understood that?
[5] INTERPRETER: Yes and I gave him the thumbs up as well and right now he is emotional.
[6] MEMBER: Alright, yes.
[7] INTERPRETER: Thank you.
[8] MEMBER: So your allegations, Sir, are fully set out in your Basis of Claim Form filed at Exhibit 2. In summary, you allege that you are a Jordanian citizen of Palestinian origin fearing tribal law sanction revenge killing because you had unlawful and unauthorised sexual relations with your employer’s daughter XXXX (ph), your employer belongs to a large powerful tribe in Jordan, the A-L-B-T-A-Y-N-E-H tribe.
[9] You indicated that you met the daughter XXXX (ph) at your work place. She was your boss’ daughter, she was also studying XXXX XXXX which you had studied and the father asked you to give her a tour of the workplace and you began a personal relationship and fell in love and you had a secret relationship you indicated because as an individual of Palestinian origin and not belonging to any tribe you and your girlfriend believed that her father would not be receptive to your relationship given your various statures in Jordan.
[10] You indicated that after spending some time together on a trip to the Dead Sea you and XXXX wound up together having premarital relations which is heavily forbidden within the Jordanian culture.
[11] About a month after this in XXXX 2021 XXXX (ph) took a pregnancy test and advised you that you, that she was pregnant. You allege that the agent of harm, the father and the tribe attacked your family home causing property damage and that later a bloodshed declaration or decree was issued against you.
[12] Your personal and national identity as a citizen of Jordan has been established on a balance of probabilities by your credible testimony and a copy of your Jordanian passport filed in Exhibit 1 of the consolidated list of documents.
[13] You have also provided University transcripts, copies of your various Degrees and that is sufficient.
[14] With regard to nexus, you face a revenge killing threat from your agents of harm in Jordan because of your unauthorised sexual relationship with Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX daughter.
[15] Threats of harm or death driven by family in tribal vendetta or revenge is not one of the five Convention grounds set under 96, under Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act therefore I have assessed your claim under Section 97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[16] Credibility was a key issue in this claim, the Court rules in Maldonado v/s Canada is that sworn testimony of a claimant is presumed to be true unless there is a valid reason to doubt its truthfulness.
[17] I have found you to be a credible witness. You testified in a straightforward and spontaneous manner, therefore I believe what you have alleged in your Basis of Claim Form and testified to in the hearing orally. You provided numerous details indicating your background, how you met XXXX (ph) how the two of your commenced a relationship, how you fell in love, how you were afraid to seek her hand in marriage for fear of your Palestinian background.
[18] You also indicated that after the father learned of your unauthorised pre-marital sexual relationship, he threatened you physically and a bloodshed declaration was issued against you which has been filed as part of your disclosure.
[19] You further testified that even though you asked for XXXX hand in marriage you were rebuffed by the father.
[20] You indicated that after you reached Canada the XXXX which is spelled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sorry that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX passed the decree on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, where they decided to have your bloodshed that is to kill you due to the fact that you had a unauthorised relationship with their daughter and brought shame to the family.
[21] You clarified that your family members are safe because they are not personally targeted, that the agents of harm are determined to kill you in accordance with Jordanian tribal custom and as previously stated, the core aspect of your allegatiwon and oral testimony were also corroborated by your personal documentation which has been entered into evidence.
[22] You provided both an affidavit from your father detailing the problems and the issues you would have, you also provided an affidavit from your aunt who you went to live in hiding prior to your departure from Jordan.
[23] You also provided a copy of the tribal decision which is found at…
[24] INTERPRETER: Any help Mr. Member?
[25] MEMBER: No it’s fine the tribal decision which is found at Exhibit 6 and again that confirms the situation and the reasons behind this bloodshed declaration.
[26] On a balance of probabilities, I find because of your unauthorised relationship with XXXX (ph) and the threats of death at the hands of your agents of harm that you have continued to receive threats of death at the hands of your agents of harm who have vowed to kill you in revenge in accordance with Jordanian tribal law and custom.
[27] Based upon the evidence provided, I find that on a balance of probabilities that you have established through your credible testimony and compelling documents the existence of a personalised forward looking risk which would not generally be faced by other persons in Jordan.
[28] On a balance of probabilities, I find you to be a credible witness and accept your oral evidence concerning the fear that you face in Jordan. I find that you have established your obligations and they are consistent with the country condition documents.
[29] Your allegations are generally consistent with the available objective evidence about conditions in Jordan. The current national documentation package from Jordan of this year, specifically Item 5.10 at Page 1 makes it clear that Jordan is a very tribal based society with very strong tribal connections and traditions and that the law in Jordan, both civil and criminal is not separate but intertwined with these tribal traditions.
[30] The NDP also confirmed that family violence and revenge is widespread in Jordan. It records that the notions of tribe and tribal law remains strong in Jordan, this is contained in NDP Item 5.10, Jordanian tribal law permits murder as revenge under various legal systems.
[31] In addition to the objective evidence found within the NDP Item 9.1 at Page 4 further indicates that revenge including by means of murder is part of tribal practices in Jordan.
[32] It is further clarified that although revenge is criminalised in Jordan because it does not constitute a right by virtue of which the avenger is granted any legal protection or special treatment. The criminalisation does not negate the fact that such crimes continue to be committed in Jordan, the same item of the NDP 5.10 at Page 7 states that tribal affiliations are inexorably tied with identity from many Jordanians from the national to the village level and that tribal identity and loyalty play a strong role in governance and dispute resolution whenever blood and honour crimes occur.
[33] Item 9.1 of the NDP at Page 1 indicates that tribal consideration or dispute resolution has come to form part of the Jordanian culture and custom despite the fact that it no longer constitutes part of the Jordanian legal system.
[34] You did indicate that your father tried to reach out to the tribe to see if resolution could be made but he was rebuffed.
[35] NDP Item 1.4 indicates that the central notation of tribal honour or S-H-A-R-A-F remains important to all aspects of life in Jordan and the importance of tribal honour manifests itself and each man feeling responsible for maintaining a tribe reputation for being resolute in rectifying each and every infraction of his rights.
[36] From the tribal perspective, if a group does not do this, they may be known as weak and then become, and then they can be known as easy prey in the desert. This is contained under NDP Item 1.4 at Page 23.
[37] NDP Item 5.10 at Page 9 further indicates that the reputation size and associated power of the tribe, its importance as one tribe’s influence, as one tribe influences what quality of justice one received.
[38] It says that revenge is a norm in Jordan whether the offense is intentional or accidental.
[39] You have explained to me that you are Jordanian of a Palestinian origin and that you belong to no known tribe and that your family is not influential and very small.
[40] I conclude that the claimant has established that the risk posed to him in Jordan from the family and the tribe, specifically the B-A-T-A-Y-N-E-H tribe is supported by this objective evidence. Counsel also filed a lengthy article about the power of the Batayneh tribe in XXXX but also in other areas of Jordan and that they are quite involved within the Jordanian government and wield considerable influence.
[41] Therefore the Panel finds that the objective evidence supports the claimant’s allegations that he faces a risk to his life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment from his agent of harm in Jordan.
[42] In terms of State protection, all States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens except where the State is in a state of complete breakdown.
[43] To rebut the presumption of State protection, the claimant has to prove clear and convincing evidence of the State’s inability or unwillingness to put, to protect its citizens.
[44] However, in certain circumstances it will be objectively unreasonable to expect claimants to do so.
[45] Furthermore, protection available to claimants may not be adequate given their particular circumstances.
[46] In this case, you testified that you did not report to the police the threats made against you because the authorities do not interfere in tribal related issues.
[47] You further credibly explained that you could not rely on the police protection and that your loss of confidence in the police is further based on the fact that in Jordan, the State does not interfere in tribal related conflict and the police would do little to protect you.
[48] Under Item 2.1 of the NDP, the US Department of State Country reports on human rights practices for 2020, it did indicate that although the law provides criminal penalties for officials inaction and corruption, the government does not implement the law effectively.
[49] In fact, the NDP specifically states the tribal law permits the family or the tribe to whose honour has been violated to take revenge from the offender and the State does not interfere.
[50] My review of the objective evidence states that the Jordanian police will stay out of tribal and family related issues.
[51] The NDP Item 5.10 makes it clear that Jordan is a very tribal based society with strong tribal traditions and law in Jordan civil and criminal is not separate but intertwined with these tribal traditions.
[52] It says that the authorities often believe family related disputes to the extended family and to the tribe to work out informally.
[53] As such, I find on a balance of probabilities that the State will not be willing or that they will be unable to provide adequate protection to you if you return to Jordan.
[54] Consequently, I am satisfied in this case that the presumption of State protection is rebutted on a balance of probabilities, State protection will not be available to you should you seek it again in Jordan.
[55] With regard to internal flight alternative, I considered whether this would exist for you in Jordan. I must assess whether there is any location in Jordan in which you could, in which you would not face a serious possibility of risk to life or whether it would be reasonable for you to move there.
[56] You testified that Jordan is a small country and since your fear is tribal and family with regard to revenge, killing issue, it will not be possible for you to seek safety internally because those seeking to harm you can locate you anywhere through their nationally spread tribal network and that the presence of the B-A-T-A-Y-N-E-H members in government institutions will assess them.
[57] I do not find that you would have a viable internal flight alternative in any city of Jordan. I find that if you return to Jordan at some point, the agents of harm would learn where you are simply through family or travel connections.
[58] From the totality of the evidence before me, I find that Jordan is not such a large populated country that you would be able to disappear into a crowd while still leaving a relatively normal life if you were to return there.
[59] Therefore based on the evidence I find that it is unlikely you would be safe from your agents of harm in any proposed IFA.
[60] Given the past actions of the agents of persecution the prevalence of tribal law and customs in Jordan I find that your agents of harm are motivated to find you anywhere in Jordan.
[61] I find that you would face a serious risk to your life or risk of torture or unusual punishment or treatment if you were to relocate because your credible evidence supports that your agents of harm have the means and motivation to find you. I will not proceed to the second prong of reasonableness.
[62] Accordingly, I find there is no viable internal flight alternative available to you in Jordan.
[63] In conclusion, based on the evidence before me I find that you would face a serious possibility of risk to your life, a risk of torture and unusual treatment anywhere in Jordan without adequate State protection or viable internal flight alternative.
[64] Therefore I find you to be a person in need of protection pursuant to Section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and I accept your claim.
[65] INTERPRETER: Thank you Mr. Member. Thank you very much. I will be summarising everything you said and definitely when I receive also the decision I will go through it with the claimant so we are good and I think he understood some of the points already because he somehow understands part of English, not fully but at least partially he understands so thank you very much.
[66] MEMBER: Yes. So I am going to just stop the recording and just I have a couple of words for the claimant.
[67] INTERPRETER: I would translate.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———