2023 RLLR 88
Citation: 2023 RLLR 88
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 8, 2023
Panel: Stefan Martens
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Cyrus Haghighi
Country: Israel
RPD Number: VC3-06509
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 claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Israel who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]
[2] In assessing this case, I considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.[2]
DETERMINATION
[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The claimant’s Basis of Claim form[3] narrative and testimony contain her allegations.
[5] The claimant is a 35-year-old Arab-Israeli woman from XXXX, a mostly Arab town to the northeast of Tel Aviv.
[6] When the claimant was 21, her mother arranged for her to marry a man 15 years old than her. The claimant felt she had no choice in the matter, so she married him.
[7] The claimant’s marriage was not a good one, and she frequently battled with XXXX. When she gave birth to a son in XXXX 2012, she was initially unable to care for him because of her XXXX.
[8] In 2016, the claimant began a XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX. She graduated in 2019, the same year she began studying XXXX at XXXX XXXX. At the same time, she also began work as a XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX in Kfar Saba.
[9] Following the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the claimant’s then-husband became more controlling, subjecting her to physical abuse as both were largely confined to the house by health restrictions.
[10] In XXXX 2021, the claimant went on a holiday to Belize alone to recuperate. When she returned, she realized that she could not continue the marriage.
[11] In XXXX 2022, she told her mother that she wanted to divorce her then-husband. In response, her mother said if that happened, one person would be in the grave (the claimant) and one person would be in the jail (the family member who killed her – likely her unbalanced brother XXXX).
[12] The claimant contacted social workers and the police. Officers said they could place her in a shelter but that she would not be able to work.
[13] In XXXX 2022, the claimant told her then-husband she wished to divorce him, but he refused to permit to her to do so. He also prevented her from going outside, but with the help of a friend, the claimant was able to fly to Canada in XXXX 2022 and claim refugee protection.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[14] The claimant’s personal identity and her identity as a national of Israel has been established by her sworn testimony and the certified copy of her Israeli passport in evidence.[4] I accept that she is a national of Israel and no other country.
Nexus
[15] I find the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention.
[16] To satisfy the definition of a “Convention refugee” found in section 96 of the IRPA, a claimant must establish that they face a serious possibility of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion in their country of nationality.
[17] The claimant fears gender-based violence from her family and her ex-husband because of her desire for a divorce.
[18] I find such allegations have a nexus to the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group – woman facing domestic violence. Because of that, I have assessed her claim according to section 96 of the IRPA.
Credibility
[19] I found the claimant to be a credible witness.
[20] In line with the Federal Court’s decision in Maldonado v. Canada, a claimant’s sworn testimony creates a presumption that the individual’s allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness.[5] In this case, I found the claimant to be credible, consistent, sincere and forthright in her testimony.
[21] The claimant testified in a straightforward fashion, highlighting how she feels trapped in a culture that she cannot escape. I find that the claimant did not seek to embellish or exaggerate the threats she has faced from her family in Israel. For instance, she emphasized that, while she never wished to marry her then-spouse, her marriage was essentially manageable until Covid-19 because the couple’s respective schedules (she would go to school and work in the day, while he would leave at 3 p.m. to open his XXXX and only return when she was asleep) meant she rarely saw her then-husband. Even then, though, the claimant noted he would still try and control her by gaining access to her WhatsApp and telling her colleagues to stay away from her.
[22] The claimant explained that Covid-19 made things impossible to continue. Because her then-husband could no longer go to work, she was stuck with his presence whenever she came home from her job at the XXXX in Kfar Saba. Living under the same roof, she said, gave him the opportunity to abuse her more often and prevent her from engaging in any activity except working for the family.
[23] The claimant also painted a nuanced portrait of the threats she faces from her family. The claimant stated that her mother controls the household and that even her father, a former XXXX XXXX, has to abide by what she says at home. For instance, when her mother chose her future spouse as a partner, the claimant’s father and sympathetic older brother, XXXX, tried to dissuade the mother, saying the man was too old for the claimant. The mother, however, refused to heed any criticism, saying she knows best and that, because the man had money from his XXXX, the claimant could marry and continue her studies.
[24] The claimant further explained that, when she decided to tell her family in XXXX 2022 that she wished to divorce her spouse, she first did so while her mother was out. In response, XXXX agreed with her, acknowledging that it was not a good match for her. When the mother learned of the discussion, however, she threatened to have XXXX kill the claimant.
[25] I find her testimony regarding her family dynamics to be credible. Rather than paint her family as a monolithic institution that is bent on harming her, she explained that it is her mother who is the driving force in demanding that she remain in the marriage and that everyone else in the home simply acquiesces to her whims. Given that it would be easier for the claimant to exaggerate that everyone in her family is determined to harm her over her wish for a divorce, I thus found her credible when she explained that the picture is more complicated.
[26] The claimant also submitted documents in support of her claim. I give high weight to the following documents,[6] as I find them to be authentic and probative in establishing, on a balance of probabilities, the credibility of her allegations.
- A copy of an email that the claimant sent to colleagues on XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2022, explaining that she had had to quit because “of a conflict with her family;”
- A copy of WhatsApp correspondence between the claimant and a friend about finding police assistance;
- Pictures of the claimant’s bruises due to physical abuse.
[27] Ultimately, I found the claimant’s testimony to be devoid of major inconsistencies, while I have also given significant weight to the aforementioned documents. As a result, I accept that the claimant faced abuse in her marriage and that her desire for a divorce ignited a conflict in her family. Because of these findings of fact, I find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that she has a genuine subjective fear of persecution in Israel.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[28] Based on the claimant’s testimony and the available documentary evidence, I find that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in Israel.
[29] The claimant suffered abuse at the hands of her husband over the course of their relationship – abuse that worsened with the onset of the pandemic. Moreover, once she told her family that she wished to divorce her husband, her mother threatened to kill her.
[30] I find that the National Documentation Package (NDP), as well as disclosure from counsel, provides an objective basis to the claimant’s subjective fears of persecution in Israel.
[31] According to the latest U.S. Department of State (DOS) report for Israel, 24 women and girls were killed by their partners or other family members in 2022. The item also quoted the Israel Women’s Network as stating that more than 200,000 women lived in situations of domestic violence in the country.[7]
[32] A report from United Nations shows that “[b]etween 2014 and 2015, about 200,000 women were victims of domestic violence. Yet, according to the Government, only 17,939 cases of domestic violence were opened in 2014, of which 80 per cent were filed by women. This shows a serious underreporting by women.” According to the same item, a U.N. rapporteur believes that patriarchal attitudes and gender stereotypes are deeply entrenched in Israeli society. In the context of conflict and occupation, these attitudes and stereotypes are tolerated, and have rigidified constituting root causes of gender-based violence against women.[8]
[33] Other studies have noted that there is an uptick in the number of “non-Jewish” women who have been murdered in femicides in recent years. In 2018, for instance, 17 of the 29 women murdered in Israel were “non-Jewish;” in 2019, that figure was 10 of 18.[9] The authors of the study criticized Israeli authorities for refusing to reveal whether “non-Jewish” meant Arab, but in light of the study’s findings that a high number of Arab women are murdered every year in Israel and reports that non-Jewish and non-Arab communities account for no more than 3.9% of Israel’s population,[10] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the “non-Jewish” femicide victims are mostly Arab, as there is no evidence to indicate that femicides disproportionately affect the country’s small non-Jewish and non-Arab population.
[34] There is other evidence that domestic violence especially affects Arab women. According to a chapter in an academic book about femicide penned by an Arab member of the Knesset, honour killings especially impact the community. “Arab tradition generally accords ‘ownership’ over the woman to her birth family … It is therefore seen as the responsibility of close male blood relatives in the natal family to ‘punish’ women, and it is their family’s honour that must be regained.” The chapter continues, noting that, while sexual relations outside marriage are the primary reason for honour killings, the concept of honour has expanded to include any behaviour by women that is not approved, including challenging male authority and taking responsibility for their own lives.[11]
[35] In this case, I acknowledge that there is no evidence that the claimant had sexual relations with someone other than her ex-husband, but I accept that she falls within the ambit of people who are targeted in honour killings as an Arab woman has tried to take responsibility for her own life by divorcing her husband and trying to pursue her career.
[36] In sum, the claimant’s mother has threatened the claimant with death for desiring to divorce her husband. The objective evidence, meanwhile, indicates that domestic violence and femicide is a profound problem in Israeli society that especially affects Arab women. Based on the totality of this evidence, I find that the claimant has established that she has a well-founded, forward-facing risk of persecution in Israel.
State Protection
[37] I find that the claimant cannot avail herself of adequate state protection in Israel.
[38] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens, except in cases of complete state breakdown. The more democratic the country, the more the claimant must do to show that they have exhausted all available means of obtaining state protection.[12] Claimants are expected to approach the state for protection unless it is unreasonable to do so.
[39] In this case, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection.
[40] The documentary evidence reveals that even with the laws and resources in place, and state intervention in cases of domestic violence,
there is a concern that the “prevalence of domestic violence against women and girls has not decreased significantly” (…). Sources reports that, according to a WIZO [Women’s International Zionist Organization] representative, there are “difficulties” in the implementation and enforcement of protection orders for women victims of violence (…). The WIZO representative is quoted by the Times of Israel (ibid.) and the Jerusalem Post (…) as saying that the “‘lack of enforcement'” puts women at risk with their violent spouses.[13]
[41] The claimant testified that she had approached authorities for protection because of the threats against her. In response, the police offered her a place in a shelter but noted that she would not be able to leave the premises, meaning she would not be able to work.
[42] The objective evidence indicates that there are just 14 shelters in the country, just two of which are for Arab women.[14] And while I note that the claimant, as a fluent Hebrew speaker, would not have linguistic problems at shelters like other Arab women, I note that the objective evidence also indicates that she can only stay at such a shelter for three months before she must leave.[15]
[43] And while I acknowledge that the claimant identifies herself first and foremost as an Israeli – rather than, for instance, a Palestinian or an Israeli Arab – I nevertheless note the objective evidence from organizations like Amnesty International that states that the Israeli state has effectively imposed a system of apartheid on Arabs under their control, whether in Gaza, the West Bank or Israel itself. This system is “intended to prevent Palestinians from claiming and enjoying equal rights to Jewish Israelis within Israel and the [occupied Palestinian Territories], and thus intended to oppress and dominate the Palestinian people.”[16]
[44] Given that the claimant is an Arab woman, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that she is even less likely to receive adequate state protection from authorities who have been accused of subjecting Arabs under their control to apartheid.
[45] Based on the totality of this evidence, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and compelling evidence.
Internal Flight Alternative
[46] I also find that the claimant does not have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Israel.
[47] In Rasaratnam,[17] the Federal Court of Appeal developed a two-prong test to assess whether an IFA is viable. The test entails the consideration of two matters: (1) Whether the claimant would be at risk in the IFA, and (2) whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him to relocate there. In this case, I proposed the cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa as potential IFAs at the outset of the hearing.
[48] For the proposed IFA to be viable, it must fulfill both prongs of the test.
[49] In the claimant’s case, however, I find that neither city is viable. All of Israel is only just slightly larger than the U.S. state of New Jersey.[18] Moreover, the two proposed IFAs are located within no more than 100 kilometres of the claimant’s hometown of XXXX. Moreover, I accept counsel’s submissions that the Arab population of Haifa and Tel Aviv is comparatively low,[19] meaning the claimant would be more visible.
[50] Given Israel’s small size and the claimant’s family motivation to harm her for engaging in actions that threaten the honour of her family, I find that the claimant does not have a viable IFA in either Tel Aviv or Haifa.
CONCLUSION
[51] For the forgoing reasons, I determine that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA; as such, the Board accepts her claim.
(signed) Stefan Martens
December 8, 2023
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board, July 2022.
[3] Exhibit 2.
[4] Exhibit 1.
[5] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.).
[6] Exhibits 4 and 5.
[7] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Israel, 31 August 2023, tab 2.1: Israel. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. . United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023.
[8] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Israel, 31 August 2023, tab 5.4: Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on her mission to Israel. United Nations. Human Rights Council. 9 January 2020. A/HRC/35/30/Add.1.
[9] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Israel, 31 August 2023, tab 5.5: Summary. Femicide: A Grim Reality and Possibilities for Resistance. Kayan Feminist Organization. 2021.
[10] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Israel, 31 August 2023, tab 1.7: Israel. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency.
[11] Exhibit 7.
[12] Hinzman, Jeremy v. M.C.I. and Hughey, Brandon David v. M.C.I. (F.C.A, nos. A-182-06; A-185-06).
[13] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Israel, 31 August 2023, tab 5.1: Domestic violence, including legislation; state protection and support services available to victims (March 2010-January 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 19 February 2013. ISR104277.E.
[14] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Israel, 31 August 2023, tab 5.2: Israel. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 7 December 2018.
[15] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Israel, 31 August 2023, tab 5.4.
[16] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Israel, 31 August 2023, tab 2.17: Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel system of domination and crime against humanity. Amnesty International. 1 February 2022. MDE 15/5141/2022.
[17] Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).
[18] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Israel, 31 August 2023, tab 1.7.
[19] Exhibit 6.