2023 RLLR 118

Citation: 2023 RLLR 118
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 31, 2023
Panel: David Jones
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Meryam Haddad
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: VC3-06815
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00593
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]         MEMBER: Okay, so we are now back on the record. So this is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX, AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline and proceedings before the IRB involving sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression, and sex characteristics. 

ALLEGATIONS

[2]         The claimant fears persecution if she were to return to either Lebanon or Ukraine because of her SOGIESC identity. This is a summary of the claimant’s allegations which are found in the narrative attached to her Basis of Claim form, including her amendments which are found at Exhibit 5. The claimant is a 23-year-old transgender woman. The claimant’s father is Lebanese and her mother is Ukrainian. The claimant was born and raised in Lebanon. 

[3]         The claimant’s narrative describes the societal abuse she faced growing up. In 2017 when the claimant was 17, she came out to her parents. Claimant’s mother’s side of the family who are primarily in Ukraine, have responded with violence to the claimant. Around 2019, the claimant began XXXX XXXX. The claimant was at university at the time, and this was when she first was getting threats from radical Islamic groups in the university. 

[4]         The claimant described facing other abuses from other students. The claimant’s narratives also described discrimination faced by LGBTIQ people in Lebanon when it comes to healthcare and employment. After the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the claimant used the Canadian Ukrainian Authorization for Emergency Travel Program to come to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2022. In April of 2023, the claimant applied for refugee protection. 

DETERMINATION

[5]         I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee. 

ANALYSIS 

Identity 

[6]         The claimant’s identity as a citizen of both Lebanon and Ukraine has been established on a balance of probabilities by the claimant’s testimony and her passports which are found at Exhibit 1. 

Nexus

[7]         The claimant’s SOGIESC identity establishes a nexus to a Convention ground for the claimant based on her membership in a particular social group. I do note that in general, the country conditions in Ukraine have significantly changed with the Russian invasion in February 2022. That said, given my determination, I find it unnecessary to consider any other nexus to the Convention grounds for the claimant in Ukraine because of the Russian invasion. 

Credibility

[8]         I find that the claimant was credible. In making that finding and relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. In this case, I have no reasons to doubt the claimant’s truthfulness. The claimant provided personal documents which support her claim which are found at Exhibit 4. These documents include photographs of the claimant with her boyfriend and copies of messages between her and her current boyfriend, as well as some earlier messages with an ex-boyfriend. 

[9]         The Exhibit also contains letters of support, including from a XXXX from Montreal and XXXX from Lebanon. There are also copies of the claimant’s prescription for her XXXX XXXX and a copy of the claimant’s XXXX report, showing her XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents, and since they relate to the claimant’s SOGIESC identity, I give these documents great weight to support her claim. 

[10]      Given the supporting documents, it was unnecessary to have the claimant testify in detail, and in the claimant’s limited testimony, she responded to questions clearly, and there are no inconsistencies or other concerns. I do note that the claimant was in Canada for almost a year before she applied for refugee protection. That said, I make no negative credibility findings against the claimant for the delay. The claimant had valid status during that time in Canada and explained that she believed the program would make her feel safe, but due to discrimination she faced in Canada, she sought greater protection and applied for refugee protection. 

[11]      I accept the claimant’s explanation for the delay, especially given the status she had in Canada at the time. Given the credibility of the claimant and the documents provided, I find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities the facts alleged in her claim, including her SOGIESC identity. 

[12]      Objective basis, Lebanon. The country condition documents supports the claimant’s fears of returning to Lebanon. The US Department of State report found at Item 2.1 in the National Documentation Package for Lebanon which is found at Exhibit 3.1, indicates that significant human rights issues in the country include crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons, as well as the existence and enforcement of laws criminal — criminalising consensual same-sex conduct between adults. 

[13]      NDP Item 6.9 is a 2021 report that also describes criminalisation of individuals with diverse SGOIESC in Lebanon. That report also states that and I quote, “transwomen and persons of feminine gender expression are at a particular risk of police targeting and violence.” Further, a 2014 Response to Information Request at NDP Item 6.4 in — or describes societal views towards SOGIESC individuals in Lebanon. While the report indicates that the conditions are somewhat better in Beirut, it still describes how individuals need to conceal their identity in the city to be safe and how SOGIESC individuals are still strongly condemned in the city. 

[14]      The RIR also indicates that 66 percent of doctors in Lebanon view SOGIESC individuals as having an illness that can be treated through psychotherapy. The claimant’s own narrative describes how she was forced by her family to go to a XXXX who was transphobic and who tried to treat her as if she had a mental illness. 

[15]      I find that the claimant has established that the societal discrimination, criminalization, and the ongoing violence towards SOGIESC individuals, including the abuse and discrimination that she has personally suffered from amounts to persecution, and the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution because of her SOGIESC identity if she were to return to Lebanon. 

[16]      As such — sorry. Objective basis, Ukraine. The country condition document also support the claimant’s fears of returning to Ukraine. The US Department of State report found at Item 2.1 in the National Documentation Package for Ukraine which is found at Exhibit 3.2 also indicates that a significant human right issue in the country are crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons. 

[17]      The report states that and I quote, “there was societal violence against LGBTQI+ persons, often perpetrated by members of violent radical groups, and authorities often did not adequately investigate these cases or hold perpetrators to account.”. Further, that report states that, and I quote, “law enforcement at times condoned or perpetrated violence against members of the LGBTQI+ community.” 

[18]      This is also indicated in a 2022 report at Item 6.1, that states that and I quote, “anti-LGBT hate speech and hate crimes continued to be a severe issue this year.” And a report at Item 6.3 on violence against the LGBT Q+ community in 2001 indicates that far-right groups continue to purposefully monitor and attack community events. The report also notes that police continue to respond extremely passively to reports of already committed attacks on LGBTQ+ organizations and activities, and the practice of investigating hate crimes and other violations of rights has not changed significantly. 

[19]      I further note that a Freedom House report at Item 2.3 indicate that SOGIESC individuals experience significant societal discrimination and generally do not receive protection from attacks against them. I find that the claimant has established that the ongoing threats of violence and discrimination towards SOGIESC individuals, including the risks the claimant may face from her own family in Ukraine, amount to persecution, and the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution because of her SOGIESC identity if she were to return to Ukraine. 

State Protection 

[20]      I have considered whether state protection is available to the claimant in either country, and I find that there is none. In both countries, the country condition documents describe the violence perpetrated by law enforcement. The country condition documents (inaudible) also indicate that police enforced criminal laws targeting SOGIESC individuals. As such, I find that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimant in her particular circumstances. 

Internal Flight Alternative 

[21]      I have also considered whether the claimant would have a viable internal flight alternative available to her in either Lebanon or Ukraine, and I find that there is none. In making this finding, I note that the country condition documents provide sufficient evidence to show that there is a location in either country, where SOGIESC individuals do not face discrimination, violence, and in Lebanon there is the ongoing risk of criminal charges. 

[22]      With respect — sorry. With the lack of state protection noted above, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant, as she would face more than a mere possibility of persecution anywhere in either country. 

CONCLUSION

[23]      For the foregoing reasons, I determined that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Board therefore accepts her claim. 

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———