2024 RLLR 23
Citation: 2024 RLLR 23
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 22, 2024
Panel: Uchenna Okoronkwo
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Harkamal Singh
Country: Palestine
RPD Number: TC3-31808
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-31810
ATIP Number: A-2024-01886
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: I am ready to decide this matter now. Today’s date is August 22nd, 2024.
INTRODUCTION
[2] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division for the following claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the 46-year-old male that is the principal claimant, file number TC3-31808 and his 19-year-old daughter XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number TC3-31810, that is the associate claimant. These claims were heard jointly pursuant to Rule 55 of the RPD Rules.
[3] I will be giving you the reasons for the decision orally, but to you and your Counsel will be provided with these reasons in writing shortly. The written reasons that you will receive will reflect those that I am giving you now. They may, however, be edited general readability or to add the references to legal citations or country condition documents below.
[4] The claimants claim to be stateless Palestinians from the West Bank of the occupied Palestinian Territory are seeking refugee protection in Canada pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA. In the decided case of Adjei v. Canada, the Federal Court heard that the duty of the RPD Panel is to determine whether there is sufficient, credible, or trustworthy evidence to determine whether there is a serious possibility that you would be persecuted if you are returned to your country or your country from a habitual residence, in your case here. This also means that it must not be possible to get protection from this persecution in your country or former a habitual residence, and for that, that there is no other place in your country or former habitual residence, where you could live safely, and that it will not be possible or reasonable to do so in your own circumstances.
[5] Regarding the female claimant, associate claimant, in assessing this claim and arriving at this decision, I have kept in mind the points raised in the Chairperson’s Guideline 4, on gender considerations in proceedings before the IRB. This is to ensure fairness and equity in the hearing process and in making this decision.
THE DECISION
[6] In coming to my decision today, I have considered the testimony and the other evidence before me. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, I find that you both are Convention refugees on the basis of your ethnicity and perceived political opinion as individuals who refused to work as spies for the Israeli army. The details of my reasons are as follows.
ALLEGATIONS
[7] Your allegations are fully set out in your Basis of Claim forms filed at Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2, as well as the updated narratives filed under Exhibit 6 of the consolidated list of documents. They need not be repeated here in detail.
[8] In summary, you alleged that you both are one (1) of the stateless Palestinians from the West Bank who faced historical repeated assaults and discrimination amounting to persecution at the hands of the Israeli authorities and Israeli settlers in the occupied Palestinian territory on the basis of your Palestinian ethnicity and imputed political opinion.
[9] You both further described that these very intelligence services agents targeted you both because you refused their order to spy on your fellow Palestinians for them.
Identity and Country of Reference
[10] Your identities as stateless Palestinians have been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimonies and copies of your passport issued by the Palestinian Authority, filed under Exhibit 1 of the consolidated list of document.
[11] Since the evidence before me indicates that you both were born and lived all your lives in the Israeli occupied West Bank, I find that your only country of former habitual residence in this matter is the West Bank. So, I will assess your joint claim against the occupied Palestinian territory.
Nexus
[12] I find that there is a link between the persecution you have suffered in West Bank and ethnicity, which is — I find that there is a link between what you both have suffered in the West Bank and ethnicity, as well as perceived political opinion, which are two (2) of the five (5) enumerated Convention grounds for refugee claim in Canada. Therefore, I have assessed a joint claim under section 96 of the IRPA.
Determinative Issue in the Claim
[13] The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. The court ruled in Maldonado v. Canada that the sworn testimony of the claimant is presumed to be true unless there is a valid reason to doubt its truthfulness. The principal claimant, XXXX, primarily testified on behalf of the claimant — the associate claimant, XXXX adopted his oral evidence and made a few additions.
[14] I have assessed both your testimonies, and I found you both to be credible witnesses. I find your testimonies to be genuine and spontaneous, as expected from someone telling their own story. You did not attempt to embellish your testimony. While you testified, there were no material inconsistencies, omissions or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence in this claim that were not reasonably explained.
[15] Your testimonies were also consistent with the other evidence on the central aspect of your joint claim. Therefore, I believe what you have alleged in your basically informs and our testimony. You orally provided credible details about your personal and family lived experiences as stateless Palestinians in the Israeli controlled West Bank.
[16] You testified that your home in the city of XXXX, West Bank has been deeply affected by the Israeli occupation and expansion of Israeli settlements over many years. Palestinians like you are constantly harassed at their homes, their places of work, and at military checkpoints maintained by the Israelis around the West Bank.
[17] According to you, the principal claimant, you faced persecution at the hands of the Israeli army right from your teenage years, from 1994 to the year 2000, in the occupied territory because of your Palestinian ethnicity, and later, after you refused to spy for the Israeli forces.
[18] Due to the economic challenges in the West Bank, you describe that you desired to seek job opportunities and work in Israel, to better care for your family and for yourself. To actualize that ambition, you requested for West for work permit from the Israeli authorities, twice, including in 1999 and in 2021. But that the Israeli officers offered to provide you the permit only if you agree to secretly obtain and provide them useful information about any plans by the Palestinian resistance groups to attack Israel. Because you repeatedly refused this offer as — to work as a spy, the army summoned the associate claimant, your daughter, with a similar offer, after she applied to visit a mosque in the Israeli controlled city in Jerusalem.
[19] Out of fear, you advised the associate claimant not to attend the invitation because it was a bid to get at you. When asked, you credibly explain that you both refused the Israeli officers order to work as informants because spying on your fellow Palestinians would expose you to attacks from either the Palestinian Authority or the other Palestinian armed groups. Your fear in this regard was heightened after the Israeli forces visited your neighbourhood and asked of your whereabouts in March 2023.
[20] By this, you stated that your neighbours spread rumours that you were working for the Israelis, thereby exposing you to a possible attack by the Palestinian authorities or the resistance forces. You were not at home when this happened, as you were in Amman, Jordan, processing the visas for your — and for your — for both of you.
[21] Because of that inquiry and the summons issued to the associate claimant, you took the decision to flee to Canada from Jordan. You both arrived in Canada in XXXX 2023 and made refugee claim to save your lives. You further described that while both of you were in Canada, the Israeli army raided your home in XXXX, West Bank, in XXXX 2023, in search of you. And that they harassed your family and damaged some of your household items in the process.
[22] Due to the past persecutory incident and attacks, you both are fearful of a return to the West Bank because you would face further persecution with no safe place to live in the occupied territory.
Supporting Documents
[23] The core aspect of your foregoing claim and testimony were also corroborated by your original and translated personal documentation package filed under Exhibits 5 and 6, which were entered into evidence. I will highlight some of them. The corroborative documents include a medical report from the XXXX XXXX in Jerusalem, which supports the principal claimant’s claim that he was admitted and treated of injuries inflicted on his XXXX by the Israeli soldiers. There are visual proof screenshots about the raiding of your home and harassment of your family members in XXXX, West Bank, by the Israeli Army on XXXX XXXX 2023 after your arrival in Canada.
[24] You also furnished three (3) translated letters of support from your family members and from your neighbour. I reviewed these letters. Each of these writers consistently expressed their respective knowledge of the problems you faced, and which forced you to flee the West Bank. In his letter, your neighbour confirmed that he — in his letter, your brother-in-law, who was your neighbour, has confirmed that he accompanied you, the principal claimant, for your interview in September 2021, in XXXX, during which you were threatened with — you were threatened by the Israeli intelligence for the reasons you have already testified before me in detail.
[25] The contents of the documentary evidence and photographic evidence you provided above are consistent with what you have told me. I noted no discrepancies and contradictions in this document.
[26] I have also considered, and I found no concerns regarding the authenticity.
[27] Therefore, I accept and attach full weight to these documents. Based upon the evidence provided, I find that you both faced — faces a serious possibility of persecution from Israeli authorities because of your Palestinian ethnicity and perceived political opinion. On a balance of possibilities, I find that you both have established the existence of a serious possibility of persecution in the West Bank, at the hands of the Israeli authorities and settlers in the occupied Palestinian territory.
[28] I further find that your subjective fears of persecution are consistent with the available country condition document.
Country Conditions
[29] Again, the duty of this Panel is to find whether there is sufficient, credible or trustworthy evidence to determine that there is more than a mere possibility that these claimants will be persecuted by the Israeli state authorities if they are returned to the West Bank based on their Palestinian ethnicity and imputed political opinion.
Discrimination in the Occupied Territory as Palestinians
[30] The Panel notes that an assessment of a risk is on a forward-facing basis. When deciding on whether the discrimination these claimants face in the West Bank rises to the level of persecution, the Panel has considered the UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, which states that discrimination may amount to persecution where measures of discrimination lead to consequences of a substantially prejudicial in nature for the person concerned. Example, serious restrictions on his right to earn his living.
[31] Upon applying the above framework of analysis in the context of the claimant’s particular circumstances and the country condition evidence set out below, the Panel finds that the claimants have established a forward-facing serious possibility of persecution and discrimination amounting to persecution in the occupied Palestinian territory.
[32] Your fear of a return to the West Bank is supported by the objective documentary evidence, on that Exhibit 3, which is the National Documentation Package for Palestine. I would refer to this objective evidence as NDP.
[33] NDP Item 1.7 indicates that Israeli security forces maintain responsibility for 82.5 percent of the West Bank, including area B, where the Palestinian Authority has administrative control, and area C, where Israel maintains administrative control.
[34] NDP Item 1.36 states that since April to May 2021, an escalation of violence between Israel and Palestine across all territories has led to an increase of security incidents as civilian casualties.
[35] Item 10.1 of the NDP reports that — reports about the excessive use of force by the Israeli army in the occupied territories.
[36] NDP Item 2.1 summarises the disturbing assessment of human rights practices in the West Bank as follows. “With respect to Israeli security forces in the West Bank, the sources state that there are credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, torture, or the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the Israeli forces, arbitrary arrest or detention, arbitrary unlawful interference with privacy, punishment of family members for alleged offence offences by a relative. Serious restrictions on freedom of movement and resistance, including arbitrary unlawful interference with privacy, family and home of Palestinians. Each of these violations disproportionately impacted Palestinians, including crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting Palestinians.”
[37] The same NDP source further reports that security checkpoints, settlements and barriers constrained Palestinians movement towards the West Bank.
[38] With respect to Israeli civilians against Palestinian civilians, the same objective sources noted above indicate that there is existence of credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings. Although Israeli authorities operating in the West Bank took some steps to address impunity or reduce abuses, the same sources note that human rights groups frequently asserted that they did not adequately pursue investigations and disciplinary actions related to abuses against Palestinians, including actions to stop or punish violence committed by Israeli settlers and soldiers in the West Bank.
[39] The same NDP Item 2.1 reports that Israeli and Palestinian governmental forces or their agents committed unlawful or unjust killings. The foregoing objective sources contain more reports of arbitrary arrest and detention, stating that Israel prosecutes persons and residents of the West Bank under military law, and Israeli settlers in the West Bank under criminal and civil law.
[40] Although Israeli military law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention and provide for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in the military court, there is a broad exceptions for security related offences. There were reports that the authorities did not observe this requirement and employed administrative detention excessively.
[41] Under Exhibit 6, the claimant’s Counsel furnished a recent country condition article which reports about the present situation in the West Bank, including the destruction of civilian infrastructures and the ongoing violations of Palestinian human rights in the West Bank.
[42] For its probative value, I consider and attach significant weight to this independent report from Al-Jazeera (ph).
[43] These claimants had credibly testified before me that they regularly faced targeted discrimination, harassment, summons, arrest, interrogations, raiding of their home and pressure to spy on their fellow Arabs in the Israeli controlled regions and XXXX, West Bank, on the basis of their nationality as stateless Palestinians.
[44] Based on your personal experiences, the objective country documentation from the NDP as well as your credible oral evidence, I am satisfied that your subjective fear of persecution is well-founded. On a balance of probabilities, the Panel has further considered and find that you faced racially discriminatory incidents at the hands of your agent of harm — agent of persecution, which rose to the level of persecution, cumulatively considered.
[45] So, based on the foregoing objective evidence and on a balance of probabilities, I find that there is a serious possibility that you both would face further, and a forward-facing persecution should you be returned to the West Bank.
State protection
[46] Given that your — were targeted by the Israeli intelligence, and it — in the light of the objective country condition document that described the lack of rule of law in the Israeli occupied West Bank, as well as the near absence of protection from the Palestinian Authority and the judiciary alike, the Panel finds that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[47] The Panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. However, there exists an ongoing violence in that region and a serious possibility of persecution throughout the occupied territory. Since the Israeli state is the agent of persecution and as it is in control of the West Bank, I find that the claimants do not have a viable internal flight alternative within the occupied Palestinian territory on a balance of probabilities.
CONCLUSION
[48] The Panel finds that the harm that these claimants fear is based upon Convention grounds. Consequently, for the reasons given, and upon consideration of the whole of the evidence, the Refugee Protection Division determines that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are Convention refugees, as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———