2023 RLLR 77

Citation: 2023 RLLR 77
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 14, 2023
Panel: Victoria Bragues
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Alaa Abu-Hijleh
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: TC3-07991
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-07992
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, this is the decision for XXXX XXXX, as well as XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is file TC3-07991. You both claim refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered and applied the gender Guidelines in coming to this decision today.

DETERMINATION

[2]       I find that you are both Convention refugees for the following reasons.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       So, you have alleged the following in your Basis of Claim forms, and those are Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2. You allege that you are both stateless Palestinians. You have lived your life between Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates or the UAE, and you allege fear of persecution in Lebanon, essentially because you are Palestinian and that is at the hands of the state and society generally, and also at the hands of Hezbollah, who have threatened your lives and gave you the ultimatum to either join them or leave Lebanon forever. You allege that there is no state protection nor an internal flight alternative available to you in Lebanon

Identity

[4]       So, you have established that you are both stateless Palestinians as well as your personal identities, and those are not only through your testimony and your Basis of Claim form, but also the documents that you have provided in that does include copies of your Lebanese travel documents for Palestinian refugees and also copies of your documents from the occupied Palestinian territory.

[5]       The applicable test for stateless claimants, so, that is found in the case of Thabet, and that is where the Federal Court of Appeal held that in order to be found a Convention refugee, stateless person must show that on a balance of probabilities he or she would suffer from persecution in a country of their former habitual residence and that he or she cannot return to any of their former countries of habitual residence.

[6]       In your cases, you were both born and lived for at least some time in Lebanon, and therefore, I find that that is a country of former habitual residence for both of you, and you have also both lived in the UAE, and so, that too, is a country of former habitual residence for you.

[7]       So, according to this Thabet principle, I must consider whether you will face in 96 or 97(1) risk to your life in Lebanon, and if so, what — I must also consider whether you can return to the United Arab Emirates.

Nexus

[8]       So, I find that there is a nexus between the harms you fear and the Convention grounds and that can either be race or even your membership in a particular social group as stateless Palestinians living in Lebanon, and therefore, I have assessed your claim pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, and I find that you have met the test under that section.

Credibility

[9]       So, in terms of your credibility, your testimony has been essentially entirely consistent, credible and straightforward with your evidence. You were able to provide clear, spontaneous and detailed testimony in regards to your allegations, and there were no attempts that I could see of you trying to embellish or bolster your claim in any way, and I find that that does really speak towards your credibility. And so, based on all the evidence before me, I find that you were both credible witnesses, and I do believe what you have alleged on a balance of probabilities.

[10]     Now, you have also provided a few documents, those are in Exhibit 6 and 7. That does not only include your identity documents, which I have already touched upon, but also other documents such as your UAE residency documents, confirming that your status there was temporary and precarious and has since expired. You provided documents confirming for the female claimant your marriage, and that was also to a stateless Palestinian man from Lebanon. You have also provided letters of support from the female claimant’s children, or in the case of the male claimant, your siblings, which also confirms your allegations, and finally, you provided an attestation letter from Lebanon confirming that you are from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. So, based on all of the evidence before me, I find that you have established again that you are both stateless Palestinians who lived between Lebanon, where you had travel documents and the United Arab Emirates, where you had temporary and precarious status and you do not have a right to return there today.

[11]     In Lebanon, you did face discrimination amounting to persecution in almost all facets of your lives, and that does include your access to health care, education, government services, social services, and even your freedom of movement.

[12]     In the case of the male claimant, you have not returned to Lebanon since 2008, and I believe you indicated you were around six (6) years old or so at the time, and that is because essentially you were traumatized by the local conflict that ensued while you were there. For the female claimant, you did return to Lebanon, I believe that was around 2017, and that was to apply for a new travel document for you and your children. However, on that trip, you came to learn that Hezbollah has taken over your home in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and they also threatened your lives and demanded that your children, your male children join them, or otherwise you would all have to leave the country for good and your lives were threatened and you did not return to Lebanon after that.

[13]     Ultimately, you did come to Canada in 2023, and that was after you had lost your sponsorship in the UAE or you were being threatened to lose your sponsorship there and you came to Canada and claimed protection. So, based on all the evidence before me, I find that you have established a subjective fear on a balance of probabilities.

Objective Basis

[14]     I find that your subjective fear is supported by the objective country documentation contained in the National Documentation Package and that this does indicate that the discrimination you would face in Lebanon does amount to persecution on a balance of probabilities. Essentially, numerous items in the NDP, such as Items 1.4, 13.1 and 13.5, they all indicate that Palestinian refugees have been present in Lebanon for many, many years. I think it indicates 70 years at least. And though the majority, which is 62 percent, of Palestinian refugees live inside of refugee camps, there is abject or deep poverty there, and the socioeconomic conditions in all 12 of the camps in Lebanon are described as deplorable and the camps are overcrowded and characterized by high health risks, water contamination and so forth. Though it is not mandatory for stateless Palestinians to live in camps, the freedom of movement for these individuals is restricted because Palestinians — the documents describe that Palestinians in Lebanon live in cages and only registered Palestinian refugees have the ability to travel from one (1) area to another.

[15]     Essentially, these documents also describe that Palestinians in Lebanon are denied citizenship and are prohibited from property ownership, which also means that they cannot run businesses or shops. Though Palestinians do have access to education, that is through the UNWRA, which is what the female claimant described today, and in terms of university, again, it would have to be through a private university, and that is quite expensive and not all can afford those tuition fees.

[16]     These same barriers exist in terms of employment, where Palestinians are prohibited from certain occupations and all public sector jobs. Many Palestinians are forced to work informally due to further restrictions they face in other area or employment sectors. Similarly, though, Palestinians can access private health care. Again, this is mostly unaffordable for most, and Palestinians generally do not have access to public health care, and again, as a female claimant described, you only have access to health care through the UNWRA.

[17]     Documents such as Items 116 and 13.1 of the NDP further confirm that discrimination against stateless Palestinians in Lebanon does rise to persecution as I mentioned. There is widespread and systematic discrimination against Palestinians and that does include persecution at the hands of Hezbollah, for example, through forcible recruitment. The documents indicate that Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim political group and militant group that is — they are deemed a terrorist organization, and they have retained significant influence over parts of Lebanon, especially in refugee camps, and the evidence confirms that authorities in Lebanon would not be able to protect a person if they are wanted by this organization. So, on the whole, I find that the treatment you face and will face in Lebanon on a balance of probabilities gauges the right to a nationality or citizenship, a right to access employment, education, health care and so forth. And these are all basic human rights which are recognized and protected under core international human rights instruments.

[18]     And following the test set out in the case of Ward, serious and systemic violations of these rights may amount to persecution either on their own or when considered cumulatively. And in your case, I find that you have established that when taken together, these various elements of discrimination do indeed rise to a level of persecution. And therefore, I find that you have established an objective basis for your fear and therefore a well-founded fear of persecution.

[19]     So, in terms of state protection, I have turned my mind toward the availability of this, and I find that, of course, it is not available to you, as I already mentioned. The documents confirm that the state is not able to protect individuals who are targeted by Hezbollah in refugee camps. I also note that the UNHCR handbook in paragraph 101, states that in the case of stateless refugees, the question of availment of protection of the country of former habitual residence does not actually arise and for all these reasons, I find that you do not have the access to state protection on a balance of probabilities.

Internal State Alternative

[20]     So, essentially for these exact same reasons, I also find that you do not have a viable internal flight alternative available to you on a balance of probabilities, and therefore, I find that you have established a serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon. And considering you have established this, I must also now consider whether you are able to return to the UAE. As I have already mentioned, your status there is temporary and precarious. The documentary evidence before me indicates that if you have left the country for six (6)  months, you would lose that status. You left the UAE in XXXX 2023. So, it has now been over six (6) months, and for all of these reasons, I find that you do not have the right to return to the UAE today.

[21]     So, based on all of the evidence before me, I find that you are both Convention refugees. I accept both of your claims.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———