2023 RLLR 71
Citation: 2023 RLLR 71
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 10, 2023
Panel: Uchenna Okoronkwo
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Israel
RPD Number: TC2-32464
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-21928, TC2-32476, TC2-32480
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the Reasons of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) for the decision in the determination of the joint claims of XXXX XXXX, a 31-year-old male (“Principal Claimant” or “PC”), his 27-year-old brother – XXXX XXXX XXXX (“Male Associate Claimant” ), his 2-year-old son –XXXX XXXX (“Minor Claimant”) and his 29-year-old spouse – XXXX XXXX XXXX (“Female Associate Claimant”) who all claim to be citizens of Israel and are claiming refugee protection in Canada pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).[1]
[2] Due to the Claimants’ familial relationship and the similarity of their grounds for refugee protection claim, the RPD joined these claims together, and these claims were heard jointly pursuant to Rule 55(1) of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.[2]
[3] The PC acted as the Designated Representative for the purposes of the Minor Claimant’s refugee protection claim. The Minor Claimant relied on the testimony of the adult Claimants.
[4] Considering that the Claimants were self-represented, the Panel took steps to explain the hearing process in greater detail, posed questions to them using plain language and was sensitive to the difficulties usually faced by self-represented claimants in a remote hearing.
Guidelines Consideration
[5] In assessing these claims, the Panel considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution[3] and the Chairperson’s Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues[4] to ensure that appropriate accommodations were made in questioning the Female Associate Claimant, in the overall hearing process, and in substantively assessing the joint claim.
ALLEGATIONS
[6] The Claimants’ allegations are fully set out in the narrative portion of their Basis of Claim forms[5] and need not be repeated here in detail. To briefly summarize, the Claimants allege that they have been historically targeted and fear further persecution from the Israeli authorities as well as Israeli society at large due to their Arab ethnicity and Palestinian origins.
[7] They further assert that due to the past and continuing persecutory incidents inflicted on them, they fled Israel to Canada to save their lives.
DETERMINATION
[8] Having considered all the evidence adduced, the Panel finds that the Claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of IRPA, as they collectively face a serious risk of persecution in Israel based on their race/nationality as Arabs/Palestinian citizens of Israel. The Panel’s reasons are as follows.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[9] The Panel finds that the Claimants’ country of reference and identities as nationals of Israel have both been established, on a balance of probabilities, by the adult Claimants’ testimony and respective copies of the Claimants’ Israeli passports filed at Exhibit 1.[6]
[10] Furthermore, the Claimants’ ethnic identity as Arabs has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by their names as well as their testimonies about their ethnicity, in Arabic, before the Board.
NEXUS
[11] From their allegations, the risk the Claimants fear has a link to the Convention ground of race/nationality, as they fear persecution due to being Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel. Therefore, their joint claim has been assessed under section 96 of IRPA.
Credibility
[12] Credibility was a key issue in this claim. The court held in Maldonado[7] that the sworn testimony of the Claimant is presumed to be true unless there is a valid reason to doubt its truthfulness. In assessing this claim, the Panel is mindful of the difficulties usually 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 and offered breaks to the Claimants as necessary.
[13] The Claimants generally testified in a forthright and spontaneous manner and in keeping with what one would expect from someone telling their own story. The adult Claimants’ testimonies were also consistent with the allegations set out in the Claimants’ BOCs, regarding the central aspect of their joint claim. Overall, there were no material inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions between their testimonies and the other evidence in their claim that were not reasonably explained. The Panel found the Claimants to be credible and trustworthy witnesses and, therefore, accepts their allegations and oral testimonies as truthful.
[14] The PC testified that the Claimants decided to make a refugee claim after cumulative events that led them to believe that, as Arabs of Palestinian origin, he and his family members faced discrimination amounting to persecution in Israel. He testified in detail about specific persecutory incidents, including being forced to shutdown their XXXX in 2014 after certain Jews attacked the business by throwing fire inside the XXXX with the intention of burning it down to demonstrate the societal hatred towards them as Arabs. The PC credibly testified that in XXXX 2017, the police stopped and arrested him (while he was driving in XXXX) on the pretext that he was not wearing seatbelt. He explained that upon being identified as an Arab, the officers took him to the police station where he was handcuffed, interrogated, harassed, and humiliated for several hours before he was released without charges.
[15] The adult Claimants were consistent regarding their testimony that a group of Jews forced their way into their home in XXXX 2021 while pretending to be police officers, threatened to cart away their household furniture in a waiting truck outside because they are Arabs and eventually extorted the sum of XXXX Israeli Shekels from the PC. The Female Associate Claimant described how the agents of persecution’s sudden invasion of their home caught her unawares without proper covering as Muslim woman should, and that the men sexually harassed her in the process. It was her testimony that the Minor Claimant was so impacted by the hard knocks on their door and cried uncontrollably out of fear. The PC testified that that no Jewish citizens or “settlers” had been subjected to the type of harassment they underwent, and they were singled out because they are Arabs.
[16] The Male Associate Claimant described in detail how the police twice arrested and detained him and the PC in 2021 at security checkpoints and at Al-Aqsa Mosque. When questioned further, the Male Associate Claimant testified that in XXXX 2021, the police stopped and arrested him at a checkpoint on his way to participate in a peaceful demonstration against the Jewish settlers and military attacks on the mosque and that he was detained him for XXXX XXXX without food or water. He described that the attackers wrote on the wall “Death to Arabs” in their apparent determination to eliminate the protesters because of their ethnic identity. The Male Associate Claimant went on to testify that in XXXX 2022, the police arrested and detained him and other Arab Israelis who went to the mosque to stop Jewish extremists from destroying their place of worship on the false allegation that the mosque was built on the site where King Solomon’s temple once stood. He explained that the police (which protected the extremists) detained him for XXXX XXXX and released him with threats of harsher punishment if further found engaging in such a demonstration.
[17] The PC explained that he and his family members had faced lots of similar incidents as an Arab Israelis, but that the invasion of their home and frequent arrests at various checkpoints made him more fearful for his and his family’s safety in Israel. According to him, Jewish citizens or “settlers” are usually not stopped at the checkpoints and that the Claimants’ vehicles are usually singled out because of their obvious Arabic names.
[18] The Male Associate Claimant also testified about the Israeli government’s deliberate discriminatory polices against the Arabs, including by denying them employments opportunities and by arming the Jews to target businesses owned by Israelis of Palestinian origin like him. According to him, the incessant discrimination and persecution of Arabs made it extremely difficult for them to attend access hospital, schools, rent a home, earn a living or to support their families.
[19] The Claimants testified that apart from the Israeli authorities’ refusal to provide Arab citizens of Palestinian origin any kind of opportunity to survive, the government continues to subject them to various kinds of race-based persecution. And that when they reached a point where they could no longer continue living in constant fears of death, they fled to Canada to save their lives.
[20] At all times during the hearing, the adult Claimants’ testimonies were spontaneous, detailed, straightforward, unhesitating, and consistent with the Claimants’ BOCs. Therefore, the Panel accepts on, a balance of probabilities, that Mr. XXXX and his family have faced persistent discrimination amounting to persecution in Israel based on their Arab ethnicity.
OBJECTIVE BASIS: DISCRIMINATION VS PERSECUTION
[21] 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.”[8] 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.[9]
[22] 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.[10] This decision contextualizes persecution within the following human rights framework:
… 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.’”[11]
[23] 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.[12]
[24] Upon applying the above framework of analysis in the context of the Claimants’ particular circumstances and the country condition evidence (as set out below), the Panel finds that they have established a forward-facing serious possibility of persecution.
[25] As well, the Panel notes the Claimants’ 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 Principal Claimant and the Male Associate Claimant had credibly testified about police brutality against them personally at their home, XXXX, on the road and at various security checkpoints, which primarily target Israeli Arabs of Palestinian origin as well as at mosque in 2014, 2017, 2021 and 2022. They also testified about their arrests and detention at different times as well as the interrogation, humiliation, and starvation they were subjected to by the Israeli police on those occasions but released without charges.
[26] 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 totality of the adduced evidence and finds that the multiple incidents of discrimination and violence on the Claimants, both from the security officials and Israeli society, based on their Arab race are sufficiently serious as the Claimants’ rights to liberty, security and mobility were adversely affected. On a balance of probabilities, the Panel further finds that these credibly established repeated acts of violence against the Claimants – as Arab community members and the human rights impact of all these harms on them – cumulatively amounts to persecution.
[27] The objective evidence supports the Claimants’ forward-looking fear of discrimination amounting to persecution for Arabs in Israel. According to the Amnesty International, Israel continued to discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel in areas of planning, budget allocation, policing, and political participation.[13]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.[14]
[28] 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.”[15]
[29] The Amnesty International also reports that 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[16]. 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.[17] Israeli forces routinely turn away or humiliate and delay Palestinians at checkpoints without explanation.[18]
[30] Another Human Rights Watch report explains that, “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 favour of Jewish citizens, sharply restricting Palestinians’ access to land for housing to accommodate natural population growth.”[19] 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.[20] The Panel has further considered the country conditions evidence and the Claimants’ oral testimony and finds that the extreme discrimination and violence faced by Palestinian citizens of Israel has been historical and continues to increase.
[31] Having considered the country conditions and the Claimants’ personal circumstances, the Panel finds that the Israeli government is nurturing intolerance against its Palestinian citizens, that cumulative anti-Arab discrimination seriously affects the Claimants’ human rights and result in a feeling of insecurity regarding their futures, thus amounting to a serious possibility of persecution.
STATE PROTECTION
[32] Given that the Israeli state authorities and the society are the primary agents of persecution in this claim, the Panel finds that no adequate state protection will be extended to these Claimants upon their return to Israel.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)
[33] Considering that the agent of persecution is the Israeli state, the Panel finds that there is no safe and viable IFA for the Claimants as Israelis of Palestinian origin, as the discrimination against Arabs exists throughout the country and the Israeli government has effective control over all its territory.[21] On a balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that the Claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in all parts of Israel.
CONCLUSION
[34] Having considered all the evidence adduced, the Panel finds that XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. Therefore, their joint claim is accepted.
(signed) Uchenna Okoronkwo
July 10, 2023
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR 2012/256.
[3] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, July 2022 (as updated).
[4] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues, September 1996. Although the Minor Claimants and the Youngest Minor Claimants were
excused from the hearing room, per the RPD Rules, the Panel still considered and applied the Guideline while assessing the Claim.
[5] Exhibits 2.1 to 2.4 of the Consolidated List of Documents. Hereinafter “BOCs”
[6] Exhibit 1 of the Consolidated List of Documents: “Claim referral information from CBSA/IRCC”. See also Exhibit 4 which contain copies of each of the Claimants’ passport, Personal Civil Status Records and a copy of the PC’s
marriage certificate with her spouse – XXXX XXXX XXXX.
[7]Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 220 (F.C.T.D.).
[8] Canada (AG) v. Ward, 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at p. 734.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] X (Re), 2020 CanLII 24189 (CA IRB), at paras. 8, 10, 12.
[12] X (Re), 2020 CanLII 24189 (CA IRB), at paras. 10, 12, 13-14.
[13] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Israel, December 21, 2022 (NDP), Item 2.2
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
[16] Supra note 13, NDP Item 2.3
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid
[19] Supra note 13, NDP Item 13.1
[20] Supra note 13, NDP Item 13.8
[21]Supra note 13, NDP, Item 2.1