2023 RLLR 66
Citation: 2023 RLLR 66
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 5, 2023
Panel: Aurina Chatterji
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Abdul-Rahman W. Kadiri
Country: Israel
RPD Number: TC2-10689
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee claim of XXXX XXXX.
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The details of the claim can be found in the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) form and narrative.[1] In short, the claimant fears persecution from various parties, including the Israeli state and society as a divorced older Arab woman with XXXX XXXX.
DETERMINATION
[3] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of IRPA as she faces a serious risk of persecution in Israel based on the intersection of her age, gender and nationality as an older Arab/Palestinian female citizen of Israel.
IDENTITY
[4] The claimant’s national identity as an Israeli citizen has been established on a balance of probabilities by her Israeli passport. Her identity as Arab has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by her name as well as her testimony about her ethnicity, in Arabic, before the board.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
[5] At the second sitting of the hearing, counsel provided a detailed XXXX report from XXXX identifying symptoms of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.[2] At this time, a report from Israel was also presented confirming that the claimant had been hospitalized for XXXX XXXX in 2020 for “XXXX XXXX.”[3] After speaking to the claimant briefly and reading through the reports, the panel designated her a Vulnerable Person and a Designated Representative was appointed to ensure the claimant’s best interests were protected. The hearing was adjourned to a third sitting as it was clear that the claimant was not XXXX XXXX on that day.
CREDIBILITY
[6] There is a rebuttable presumption that a claimant’s sworn testimony is truthful and a claimant bears the burden of establishing their claim. The panel is mindful of the difficulties faced by claimants in establishing a claim, including cultural factors and the stress inherent in the hearing room. During the hearing, the panel rephrased questions, offered breaks and even adjourned a sitting as necessary. As previously noted, the claimant is a Vulnerable Person with multiple XXXX XXXX difficulties. The XXXX report states, “it is difficult to distinguish if these are XXXX symptoms or not, or maybe related to her past trauma.”[4] The panel agrees with this assessment made by an experienced XXXX and also finds it difficult to distinguish between the claimant’s XXXX and trauma, on a balance of probabilities. As such, the panel finds that it is impossible to assess the claimant’s allegations of being attacked by multiple men trying to throw her out of the house. The claimant’s credibility with respect to these incidents is inconclusive.
[7] However, the panel did find the claimant’s testimony about growing up in a segregated Arab community with chronically underfunded facilities, such as hospitals and schools, to be credible. Based on this testimony as well as the country conditions, the panel finds that the claimant still faces risk in Israel, based on her residual profile as a divorced older Arab/Palestinian woman with significant XXXX XXXX difficulties. The panel accepts on, a balance of probabilities, that Ms. XXXX will face discrimination amounting to persecution in Israel based on the intersection of her age, gender and Arab ethnicity.
NEXUS
[8] The panel has assessed this claim under s.96 as it finds a link between the claimant’s fear of persecution and multiple Convention grounds including race/nationality and member of a particular social group as she faces a serious risk of persecution in Israel due to being a XXXX XXXX divorced woman of Palestinian Arab ethnicity.
OBJECTIVE BASIS: DISCRIMINATION VS PERSECUTION
[9] In Ward, the Supreme Court held that persecution is the “sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights demonstrative of a failure of state protection.”[5] The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) indicates in its Handbook that discrimination rises to persecution where there are a number of discriminatory acts substantially prejudicial to the person concerned, which take place in a general atmosphere of insecurity, and which result in a feeling of apprehension and insecurity with regard to the future existence of the person concerned.[6] In determining whether the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution upon return to Israel, the panel is guided by a RAD decision, identified as a Reason of Interest.[7] This decision contextualizes persecution within the following human rights framework:
[8] … This test must be understood within the context set out by Hathaway, who explains that the assessment of persecution must be done in the context of human rights law. This human rights based approach to assessing persecution is not intended to be hierarchical or categorical but rather flexible and fluid allowing for decision-makers to “take account of the cumulative human rights impact of the various harms alleged in order to arrive at a synthesized assessment of the ‘totality of the claim.’”[8]
[10] As per these Reasons, the panel must consider the situation in the country and whether the government is creating an atmosphere of intolerance; the consequences of the discrimination, including whether there are impacts on an ability to access education, healthcare, and jobs, which lead to an insecure future existence; the personal circumstances of the claimants and their vulnerabilities, including age, health, finances, and gender; and the cumulative nature of the discrimination and whether it rises to persecution.[9] Upon applying this framework of analysis in the context of the claimant’s particular circumstances and the country condition evidence, as set out below, the panel finds that she has established a forward-facing serious possibility of persecution.
[11] As well, the panel notes the claimant’s testimony on lack of appropriate infrastructure in Arab neighbourhoods, including improper educational, recreational and healthcare facilities. As these facilities are lacking primarily in Palestinian towns of Israel, the panel finds that the poor educational and medical infrastructure discriminates against Palestinians in Israel. The claimant also testified that she did not go anywhere in Israel in order to avoid checkpoints. It is well-established in the jurisprudence that persecution may be caused by discriminatory acts that are sufficiently serious and occur over such a long period of time that it can be said that the claimants’ physical or moral integrity is threatened. The panel has considered the social exclusion of the claimant as a divorced Arab woman in Israel, her XXXX XXXX without easy access to medical facilities, as well as the deep psychological impact of witnessing violence against the Arab community and finds that cumulatively, the human rights impact of all these harms amounts to persecution.
[12] The objective evidence supports the claimants’ forward-looking fear of discrimination rising to persecution for Arabs in Israel. According to Amnesty International, Israel continued to discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel in areas of planning, budget allocation, policing and political participation.[10] This report confirms that Israel maintains over 65 laws that discriminate against Palestinians. In August, two NGOs filed a petition to the Israeli Supreme Court on behalf of 10 local Palestinian councils and dozens of Palestinian citizens of Israel against government policy discriminating against these communities in the distribution of housing, construction and land development benefits compared to neighbouring Jewish communities that enjoy higher socio- economic status and have access to such benefits.[11]
[13] In December, the magistrate court in Krayot, near Haifa, rejected a petition for access to education by Palestinian citizens of Israel living in Karmiel, citing the discriminatory Nation State Law. The decision said that establishing an Arabic school in the town or funding transport for its Palestinian residents to study in Arabic schools in nearby communities would undermine the town’s “Jewish character.”[12]
[14] Amnesty International also reports Israeli soldiers, police and ISA officers continued to torture and otherwise ill-treat Palestinian detainees, including children, with impunity. Reported methods included beating, slapping, painful shackling, sleep deprivation, use of stress positions and threats of violence against family members[13]. Human Rights Watch also confirms that Israeli authorities in 2020 systematically repressed and discriminated against Palestinians in ways that far exceeded the security justifications they often provided.[14] Israeli forces routinely turn away or humiliate and delay Palestinians at checkpoints without explanation.[15]
[15] Another Human Rights Watch report explains, “The Israeli government’s policy of boxing in Palestinian communities extends beyond the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinian towns and villages inside Israel,(…) The policy discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel and in favor of Jewish citizens, sharply restricting Palestinians’ access to land for housing to accommodate natural population growth.”[16] Reports also state that Palestinian members of the Knesset (MKs) are facing increasing threats to their freedom of expression. These threats are of concern in and of themselves but also reflect the wider situation in Israel in which the space for voices critical of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians has shrunk and discrimination against Palestinian citizens has been entrenched.[17] As well, the panel has considered the country conditions evidence submitted by counsel which further confirms the extreme discrimination and violence faced by Palestinian citizens of Israel, which has escalated in recent months.[18]
[16] Having considered the country conditions and the claimant’s personal circumstances, the panel finds that the Israeli government is nurturing intolerance against its Palestinian citizens, that cumulative anti-Arab discrimination seriously affects the claimant’s human rights and results in a feeling of insecurity regarding her future, thus amounting to a serious possibility of persecution.
STATE PROTECTION
[17] Given that the Israeli society and state is the primary agent of persecution, the panel finds that no adequate state protection will be extended to the claimant upon return to Israel.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE
[18] Given that the agent of persecution is the Israeli state, the panel finds there is no safe and viable IFA for the claimant as a Palestinian citizens of Israel, as the discrimination against Arabs exists through out the country and the Israeli government has effective control over all its territory.[19] The claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in all parts of Israel.
CONCLUSION
[19] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 and accepts her claim.
(signed) Aurina Chatterji
June 5, 2023
[1] Exhibits 2
[2] Exhibit 7
[3] Exhibit 8
[4] Exhibit 7
[5] Canada (AG) v. Ward, 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at p. 734.
[6] The UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV. 4, at paras. 54-55.
[7] X (Re), 2020 CanLII 24189 (CA IRB), at paras. 8-15. See also: Tetik v. Canada (MCI), 2009 FC 1240, at para. 26; Liang v. Canada (MCI), 2008 FC 450, at paras. 21-22; Bledy v. Canada (MCI), 2011 FC 210.
[8] X (Re), 2020 CanLII 24189 (CA IRB), at paras. 8, 10, 12.
[9] X (Re), 2020 CanLII 24189 (CA IRB), at paras. 10, 12, 13-14.
[10] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Israel, December 21, 2022 (NDP), Item 2.2
[11] Ibid
[12] Ibid
[13] NDP, Item 2.3
[14] NDP, Item 2.3
[15] Ibid
[16] NDP, Item 13.1
[17] NDP, Item 13.8
[18] Exhibit 9
[19] NDP, Item 2.1