2023 RLLR 70

Citation: 2023 RLLR 70
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 7, 2023
Panel: Aurina Chatterji
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Harkamal Singh
Country: Saudi Arabia
RPD Number: TC2-26898
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-26905
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision in the refugee claims of XXXX XXXX and his brother, XXXX XXXX. The claimants are brothers. I have considered your testimony and other evidence in this case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. I find that you are both Convention refugees as you have established a serious possibility of persecution in Saudi Arabia, based on the intersection of your imputed political opinion and your nationality of stateless Palestinians.

[2]       The details of your claim are in your Basis of Claim forms and narrative, which can be found in Exhibit 2.1 and 2.2, along with an amendment at Exhibit 5. In short, you both allege a fear of detention in Saudi Arabia as you no longer have status in that country, and fear indefinite detention, as you do not have a country to be deported to, as stateless Palestinians. You also fear reprisal from high-ranking Saudi officials who approach both of you to spy on Shia students criticizing the Saudi prince. When you refused to do so, the threats against you and your brother escalated, leading you to flee the country.

[3]       You have both established your personal national identities as stateless Palestinians based on your Egyptian travel document for Palestinian refugees, as well as your Palestinian Authority travel document. Both these documents can be found at Exhibit 1.

[4]       As you are both stateless, I assessed, your claim against your country of former habitual residence. I note that you both have travel documents from Egypt, and I note that this document is issued merely for travel and does not bestow any nationality rights on you. In fact, the travel document expressly states that it does not allow its owner to live in, or enter, Egypt. Based on the above. Egypt is not a country of former habitual residence, and you have not established a fact of residence there.

[5]       I also note that neither of you has been to the occupied Palestinian territories, nor do you have permission to enter your territories with your Palestinian Authority passports. However, I consider that you were born in Saudi Arabia, which is the only country where you have lived for all of your lives until you came to Canada. As such, I find that Saudi Arabia is the only country where you both have de facto residence, and that you have a relationship to Saudi Arabia broadly comparable to that between a citizen and his or her country of nationality. On the facts of this case, therefore, I find that the only country of former habitual residence is Saudi Arabia, and I have assessed your claims against only that country.

[6]       I found you both to be credible witnesses, and I believe what you presented in support of your claim. Mr. XXXX, you testified without hesitation and detail and were responsive to the questions I asked you. There were no material inconsistencies in your testimony, or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me. You testified about the various problems you and your brother had experienced in your lives, as stateless Palestinians, starting from when you were in school. As young children, you extended Palestinians were mistreated more than other migrants as you did not have a state to protect you, and you were bullied and accused of selling your homeland to settle in a foreign country.

[7]       You explained that it had been instilled in you and your brother since childhood that you could never speak freely in Saudi Arabia, as there was always a fear that you could be disappeared. You testified organically and in consistent detail about how you and your brother were first approached by XXXX XXXX (ph) to spy on Shia students and repeat — sorry, report any criticism against the prince. Despite XXXX XXXX and his collaborators’ several attempts to recruit you and your brother, you explained that you refused to do so as it was against your ethics. You extend that you did not want to be responsible for a friend or colleague being killed by the state because you reported them to the authorities for expressing their opinions. You explained as well that XXXX XXXX and his collaborators insulted you and your brother for being Palestinian and threatened that you both could be disappeared easily as you did not have a state to protect you. You explained organically that you were fearful because of Jamal Khashoggi, who was a native of Saudi Arabia, could be so brutally murdered for opposing the regime. A stateless Palestinian like you and your brother would face untold repercussions.

[8]       At all times, your testimony was consistent with your BOC and internally consistent with your brother’s claim as well. You provided proof of your education at the university where you were targeted, as well as copies of threats that XXXX allegedly received by text. However, I have some concerns about the genesis of these text messages as I was unable to verify the originals on your phone. As such, I do not put any weight on these text messages. However, this does not outweigh your otherwise credible testimony.

[9]       I note that XXXX provided a copy of his expired Iqama, but XXXX did not. However, I note that you are both still under 25 and therefore, dependant on your father’s status and would therefore have the same date of issue and expiry for your visas. The country conditions evidence in the NDP also confirms that status automatically expires six (6) months after you have left Saudi Arabia, and that can be found at 14.1. I know that you both only spent one (1) day in the US. When I asked you if you made a refugee claim in the US, you said you wanted to come to Canada as your maternal uncle lives here. I accept this response as reasonable and I do not draw a negative inference with respect to your subjective fear.

[10]     Having carefully considered the totality of the evidence before me, I find that the information you presented in your testimony and documents to be credible.

[11]     With respect to Nexis, I am satisfied on the facts of your case that you both face prosecution under section 96 in Saudi Arabia, based both on your political opinion as well as your nationality as stateless Palestinians. As neither of you currently have status in Saudi Arabia, you would be subject to deportation. The country conditions confirmed that foreigners are subjected to detention and deportation due to visa violations. This can be found at Item 2.4. On September 21st, 2019, authorities announced that the campaign had netted over 3.8 million arrests, including four (4) — 3 million residency law violations and almost 600,000 labour law violations. This campaign then recommended over 962,000 migrants for deportation. This can be found at the Human Rights Watch report, at Item 2.5. Based on this objective evidence, I find that both you and your brother would be at risk of arrest in Saudi Arabia as you no longer possess valid residency documents.

[12]     However, in as stateless Palestinians with nowhere to be deported. I find that you both face a serious possibility of being detained indefinitely in Saudi Arabia, which would be a clear violation of your human rights, amounting to persecution. The objective evidence confirms that there is substantial prejudice against ethnic and national minorities in Saudi Arabia. And the NDP is unequivocal that the country’s restrictive sponsorship laws have the impact of increasing vulnerability to forced labour conditions. All of this can be found at Item 13.1of the NDP for Saudi Arabia.

[13]     In its most recent rankings, Freedom House ranked Saudi Arabia as, “Not free”. This can be found at Item 2.3. And this report confirms that surveillance is extensive within Saudi Arabia and Saudis living and travelling abroad are also subjected to spying and intimidation. The government is known to have purchased Pegasus spyware, which allows users to secretly hack into a target’s phone and spy on their whereabouts and communications in real-time.

[14]     Investigations in 2021 by foreign journalists and researchers uncovered a new form of surveillance used by the Saudi government that needed no interaction with the targeted user to access their personal devices. I also note that there are severe criminal penalties for criticism of the regime and free discussion on topics like religion or the royal family. Laws are often vaguely worded, giving the state considerable discretion to determine what constitutes illegal expression.

[15]     A report to the Joint Human Rights Council confirms that being stateless in Saudi Arabia can result in significant violations of rights, which has included lack of access to public education, healthcare and other services, inability to access employment, impeded family reunification, social alienation, and psychological challenges. What is often the most difficult consequences for these communities is that alongside other non-nationals, they are at the mercy of their sponsors to remain in the country. But unlike other non-nationals, they would have nowhere to return to if deported. This is at Item 3.9 of the Saudi Arabia NDP.

[16]     On the basis of all of the above. I find that the objective evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that based on your nationality as stateless Palestinians, as well as your imputed political opinion for refusing to collaborate with the state, you both face a serious possibility of persecution in Saudi Arabia.

[17]     Now, as I have already found, the laws inside Saudi Arabia place foreigners, and particularly stateless Palestinians, in a very vulnerable position such that they have limited recourse to their rights — limited recourse when rights are violated, sorry, and that’s at Item 2.5. Since it is a law of the state itself that subject stateless Palestinians to the exploitative sponsorship structure, I find that the state is responsible for the persecution that stateless Palestinians experience within its borders, and therefore I find that no adequate state protection exists for you inside Saudi Arabia. Further, since the agents of persecution in this case are state actors, I further find that you will not receive state protection on a balance of probabilities.

[18]     Since your agents of persecution are high-ranking government actors, there is no safe IFA for either of you within Saudi Arabia. The surveillance from the government and harsh laws against dissent exist all over the country, and therefore there is no safe IFA for you in Saudi Arabia, as there would be a serious possibility of persecution based both on your nationality and imputed political opinion in all parts of the country. For all of these reasons, I accept both of your claims under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and I find you both to be Convention refugees.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———