2024 RLLR 105

Citation: 2024 RLLR 105
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 19, 2024
Panel: Sandeep Chauhan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Robert Kincaid
Country: Jordan
RPD Number: VC2-05786
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00611
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”), as a citizen of Jordan, who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)[1].

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations put forth by the claimant in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form[2].

[3] He fears persecution in Jordan at the hands of his family, society, and the authorities due to his atheism.

[4] The claimant is a 22-year-old male, who was born into a radical and conservative Muslim family. He did not like being forced to pray five times daily, as he did not believe in the religious practices dictated by his religion. After his father fell ill in 2020, the claimant’s eldest brother, XXXX, took over the responsibility of raising him. This is when the claimant’s troubles began. He was forced to follow the Islamic religious practices strictly, barring which he would be physically assaulted, during one such instance, when he did not pray as directed, the claimant was locked up in a room by XXXX and beaten so severely that he lost consciousness. This is when the claimant decided to flee Jordan as he was now prevented from going to school because XXXX would force him to do household chores and tend to the XXXX at their XXXX. With his sister’s assistance, the claimant applied for a study permit to Canada and escaped his country without informing his brother and family. He reached Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2022, and applied for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

[5] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Jordan is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on a certified cop of his Jordanian passport on file.[3]

Nexus

[7] For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason of one or more of the five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. In this case, the evidence before me is that the claimant fears persecution in Jordan due to his atheism. I find that he has established nexus to the Convention ground of religion. Accordingly, I have assessed his claim under section 96 of IRPA and not under section 97.

Credibility

[8] When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness. (Maldonado [1980] 2.F.C. 302 (C.A.))

[9] In this case, the claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me. One of the issues before me is that of the claimant’s application for study permit being sponsored by his family, which goes to the heart of the claim as he is fearful for his life due to violence at their hands. I am satisfied with the explanation provided by the claimant on this issue. He stated that his sister was the one who filled out the study permit application and even though there is an undertaking that his father is responsible for the claimant’s expenses, including tuition, while he is a student in Canada, it was his sister who provided him with all the financial assistance. To corroborate this, there is a declaration by the claimant’s sister in which she describes the details of how she assisted him in his application for study permit in Canada. Therefore, I accept on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s sister was providing him assistance with his application and financially supporting him, and not his father or brothers.

[10] The claimant has provided corroborating documentary evidence[4] to support his claim. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and accept them as genuine. The evidence contains, among other documents, letters of support from his sister and two of his other siblings, and photographs of his injuries suffered during the regular assaults he endured at the hands of XXXX.

[11] Based on his straightforward testimony and the corroborating evidence discussed above, I find the claimant to be a credible witness and accept his allegations to be true on a balance of probabilities. In particular, on a balance of probabilities, I accept that:

• The claimant is an atheist.

• He suffered serious injuries due to physical assaults by his brothers due to his atheism.

• He has a subjective fear of returning to Jordan.

Article 1E Exclusion Issue

[12] The claimant is now married to a Canadian. This marriage took place on XXXX XXXX, 2023, which raises the issue of exclusion under Article 1E by way of him having access to Canadian permanent residency through his spouse.

[13] The Minister was sent a letter on March 8, 2024 regarding this issue, inviting their response. No response from the Minister was received as of March 28, 2024, the deadline for them to respond by. While there is a possibility 1E applies, I have insufficient evidence to find, on a balance of probabilities, that it does in this case. Therefore, the claimant is not excluded.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[14] To establish his status as a Convention refugee, the claimant had to show that there was a serious possibility that he would be persecuted if removed to Jordan. I find that the evidence presented in support of his allegations establishes a serious possibility of persecution as alleged by him. My reasons are as follows.

[15] The claimant, an atheist, was under the care and supervision of his eldest brother, XXXX, after his father fell ill in 2020. XXXX stopped the claimant from attending school and forced him to do laborious work at home and at the farm. He had an issue with the claimant’s atheism and threatened to kill him if he did not follow the tenets of Islam. The claimant had to escape Jordan with his sister’s assistance and without informing his family of this decision. He now fears for his life at the hands of his brother, the society, and authorities if he is forced to return to his country.

[16] I find that the claimant’s subjective fears are supported by objective evidence.

[17] Objective evidence[v] shows that atheism is not recognized by the Jordanian authorities for purposes of official identification. Even though atheism is not actively persecuted in Jordan, it is not something that a person can openly advertise or show to the public, as that could invite negative reactions from society. The authorities may deny apostates, including atheists, their civil rights, and prosecute them for slandering Islam.

[18] The Freedom of Thought Report by Humanists International states that it is illegal to identify as an atheist in Jordan.

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination Religious control over family law or legislation on moral matters.[6]

[19] Freedom House reports that:

While converts from Islam are not prosecuted for apostasy, they face bureaucratic obstacles and harassment in practice. Unrecognized religious groups are allowed to practice their faiths but face disadvantages stemming from their lack of legal status. Atheists and agnostics are required to list a religious affiliation on government documents.[7]

[20] The objective evidence discussed above shows that while there is no active persecution of atheists in Jordan by the authorities, they are forced to list a religious affiliation, barring which they would have no legal status in their country. Atheists have also expressed relocation abroad due to threat of violence at the hands of society.

[21] The claimant’s eldest brother, XXXX, has threatened to kill him if he does not conform to the Islamic code of conduct. The claimant endured extreme physical violence in the past due to his lack of faith in Islam, and now faces likelihood of risk to his life following the threat made by XXXX.

[22] Therefore, based on all the evidence before me, I find that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution if forced to return to his country, especially since XXXX will have access to him through his other siblings in Jordan. I find that his fears are indeed well-founded.

State Protection

[23] I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the claimant in this particular case.

[24] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens, except in situations where the country is in a state of complete breakdown. The responsibility to provide international (or surrogate) protection only becomes engaged when national or state protection is unavailable to the claimant.[8] The claimant argued that he will not be able to seek protection in Jordan as the issue of violence at the hands of his family is considered as private, in which authorities either do not interfere or do not punish the perpetrators.

[25] Even though there is no specific evidence against honour killings involving males, I rely on the objective evidence on this issue as reported by Euro-Med.

In 2008, Jordan adopted the Law on Protection from Domestic Violence – Law No. 6. Despite the important amendments to this law in 2017, it did not mention the issue of gender-based violence. However, it can be considered in general as a protection law as it provides for restraining orders against the aggressor, as well as taking immediate protection measures in cases of domestic violence. However, this law contains some important shortcomings, including the failure to criminalize forms of violence such as restrictions on women’s freedom and choices, economic abuse, psychological violence, and marital rape.[9]

[26] On the issue of police protection for survivors of gender-based violence, the United Nations Population Fund notes that:

Survivors have expressed fears of retaliation if seeking police assistance as well as fear of stigma due to lack of confidentiality and lack of survivor-centred approach within law enforcement actors (victim-blaming, perpetrators asked to sign pledges instead of serving jail terms). The legal system does not encourage survivors to come forward as specific types of GBV are not being criminalised (such as marital rape) or punishments being too lenient. In addition, instead of ordering jail terms for potential perpetrators of so called “honour killing”, law enforcement authorities place women at risk of so-called honour killing in detention centres for their own “protection”.[10]

[27] The objective evidence establishes that there is inadequate legislation in place to tackle gender-based violence in Jordan. Even though the claimant is a male in this case, the objective evidence shows that honour-based crimes are punished but very leniently. There is, in most cases, no action taken against the perpetrator of such act(s).

[28] The claimant has been threatened with death by XXXX as, by renouncing Islam, the claimant has brought shame to his family and his tribe. XXXX has vowed to kill the claimant in order to reclaim the family’s honour.

[29] Therefore, based on the objective evidence discussed above, I find that the claimant will not be able to access adequate state protection in Jordan, and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this case.

Internal Flight Alternative

[30] The final issue is whether the claimant has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Jordan.

[31] The agent of persecution in this case is the claimant’s brother. If the claimant is forced to return to Jordan, he will most likely be tracked through his siblings by XXXX. This will put him in harm’s way as the rest of the family is not expected to put their lives in danger and hide the claimant’s whereabouts.

[32] Therefore, for these reasons and the ones similar to those in relation to that of state protection, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant does not have a viable IFA in his home country.

CONCLUSION

[33] Based on the analysis above, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA. Therefore, I accept his claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[2] Exhibit 2.

[3] Exhibit 1.

[4] Exhibits 6-9.

[5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Jordan, 20 December 2023, tab 12.2: Situation and treatment of atheists; whether someone who is born Muslim but does not practice Islam and considers himself or herself to be atheist faces discrimination or ill-treatment by state authorities or society. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 June 2010. JOR103511.E.

[6] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Jordan, 20 December 2023, tab 12.5: ​Jordan: The Freedom of Thought Report. Humanists International. 19 June 2023.

[7] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Jordan, 20 December 2023, tab 2.11: ​Jordan. Freedom in the World 2023. Freedom House. 2023.

[8] Ward [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689

[9] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Jordan, 20 December 2023, tab 5.12: ​Women in Jordan: Continuing Violence and Absent Protection. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. August 2020.

[10] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Jordan, 20 December 2023, tab 5.15: ​Jordan GBVIMS Task Force: Annual Report 2022. United Nations Population Fund et al. 3 September 2023.