2024 RLLR 37

Citation: 2024 RLLR 37
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 29, 2024
Panel: Alex Chung
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary Jane Campigotto
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: TC2-17733
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-17739, TC2-17747, TC2-17750, TC2-17753
ATIP Number: A-2025-00128
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

MEMBER:

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee claims of XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant or PC, designated representative or DR, XXXX XXXX, associate claimant one (1) or AC one (1) spouse, XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant two (2), or AC two (2) minor child, XXXX XXXX, Associate Claimant three (3) or AC three (3) adult child, and XXXX XXXX, associate claimant four (4) or AC four (4) minor child, who are seeking protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Act.

[2] In assessing their claims, I am mindful of procedural and evidential issues related to minor refugee claimants and have considered this claim — these claims with reference to Chairperson’s Guideline 3 of the Board on child refugee claimants and the RPD Practice Notice concerning the presence of children at Refugee Protection Division hearings. As minor claimants under the age of 18 are not required to testify at the hearing, the PC was appointed as a — as the DR for the minor claimants and testify on their behalf.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimants’ allegations are found in their Basis of Claim forms and narratives at Exhibits 2.1 to 2.5, as well as in their testimonies is given today. In summary, they fear that as stateless Palestinians, if they were returned to Lebanon, their country of former habitual residence, they would face discrimination amounting to persecution at the hands of the Lebanese government based on their nationality. They also allege that they cannot return to the United Arab Emirates, or UAE, where they had temporarily resided, sponsored by the PC’s employment before coming to Canada. Since the PC’s employment was terminated and their UAE temporary residence status had expired.

DETERMINATION

[4] I find that pursuant to section 96 of the Act, the claimants are Convention refugees as there exists a serious possibility of persecution should they return to Lebanon on account of their nationality.

ANALYSIS

Identity in Country or Countries of Former Habitual Residents

[5] I find that the claimants’ identities are established by the supporting documentation file, including the claimants’ Palestinian refugee travel documents issued by Lebanon and their United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East Family Registration Card at Exhibit 5.2. As Canada does not recognise the occupied Palestinian territories as a country, I also find that they have established that they are stateless, not possessing citizenship of any country.

[6] As the claimants are stateless, I have considered the criteria from the jurisprudence to determine which country or countries should be identified as their country of former habitual residence. In particular, in which country it can be considered that the claimants had a significant period of de-facto residence.

[7] The Federal Court of Appeal in Thabet held that in order to be found to be a Convention refugee, a stateless person must show that on the balance of probabilities, he or she would suffer persecution in any country or former habitual residence, and that he or she cannot return to any of his or her other countries of former habitual residence.

[8] I note that the PC was born in Lebanon while AC one (1) was born in Libya, and the minor claimants were born in the UAE, as well as XXXX. But all claimants have been issued Palestinian travel documents by Lebanon. This is confirmed in the personal documents provided including the claimants’ birth certificates and travel documents at Exhibits 5.1 and 5.2.

[9] As the claimants had temporary status in the UAE, Lebanon is the only country in which the claimants could be returned, and as such I will assess these claims against Lebanon.

Nexus

[10] I find that there is a link between the claimants’ fear of persecution and the Convention grounds of nationality. I have therefore assessed this claim under section 96 of the Act.

Credibility, The Minister’s Intervention

[11] The credibility issue raised in the Minister’s intervention were addressed during the hearing. When questioned on why the adult claimants did not declare their failed applications for Canadian permanent residency, or PR, in 2008, they explained that the PC applied for temporary residency under the Skilled Workers Program at that time, which would have eventually led to permanent residency had their applications been successful. However, as they were notified that they were ineligible for the program, they withdrew their applications and received a refund from the Government of Canada.

[12] When the claimants initiated their refugee claims at the Montreal border, they explained this to the officer who helped them to complete their application forms, but not only did the border officer declare this as a failed — did not declare this as a failed PR application, they — the claimants themselves also did not understand that what they had applied for in 2008 was categorized as a PR application. This is corroborated by their submission of an addendum to their BOC narrative at Exhibit 5.4.

[13] When asked why they failed to declare their non-immigrant visa application refusal in 2007, they explained that they genuinely did not remember it as they did receive US visas in subsequent years in 2016 and 2021, as shown in the copies of their passport pages at Exhibits 1, 4, and 5 — 1, 4, 5.1 and 5.2.

[14] In view of the proceeding and their explanation, I find that their explanations are reasonable in their circumstances, and I do not draw a negative inference from this finding.

Credibility of Their Elements

[15] I find the claimants to be credible witnesses generally, as I noted no serious credibility issues that go to their core allegations. They gave their testimonies in a direct and natural manner. There were no significant inconsistencies in their testimonies or contradictions between the testimonies and the other evidence on file. I therefore accept what they have alleged in support of their claims and find the following allegations which have been corroborated by documentary evidence to be true.

Profile as Stateless Palestinians Who Were Discriminated by the Lebanese Government and Society

[16] The claimants allege and accept that Palestinians in Lebanon suffer systemic discrimination, marginalization, and poor as well as unsafe living conditions. They lack access to basic services and employment.

[17] The PC was born in Lebanon to Palestinian parents and went to the UAE in 1979 for education from primary school until high school graduation. He then went to Syria and the USA for undergraduate and XXXX XXXX studies in XXXX throughout the 1990s and 2000, graduating in 2009. During that time, he met AC one (1) in the UAE, and they got married in 2002 and have three (3) children together, AC two (2), AC three (3), and AC four (4). This is corroborated by the PC and AC one (1)’s marriage certificate and their UNRWA card at Exhibits 5.1 and 5.2.

[18] AC one (1) was born in Libya to Palestinian parents and went to Lebanon for elementary school, graduating in 1987. She went to Syria for secondary school and then back to Lebanon for a XXXX degree in XXXX, graduating in 1998.

[19] AC three (3), their adult child has completed his XXXX year of university in the UAE.

[20] Back to the PC, after he completed his studies in the US in 2009, he went back to the UAE where he worked at a XXXX between 2010 and 2022. The claimant’s temporary residence permits were sponsored by the PCs employer — or former employer as his employment was terminated in XXXX 2022. They can no longer return to the UAE as their temporary residence permits have expired. This is corroborated by the PC’s employment documents and termination letter, as well as their UAE expired temporary residence permits at Exhibit 5.1.

[21] Further, the claimants explained that when he returned to Lebanon with — when the PC returned to Lebanon with AC three (3) in XXXX 2018, they underwent lengthy security interviews by the airport security officers. This caused him severe anxiety for which he had to take medications afterward.

[22] Similarly, AC one (1) was also mistreated by airport officials when she returned to Lebanon during a visit in 2019. While in the UAE, the PC had also been subjected to discrimination and mistreatment by his former employer, who also refused to pay his salary for the year 2021. He took his employer to court over this, but the matter was adjourned. His former employer then also threatened to deport him if he did not withdraw the court case. This is corroborated by a court document he submitted At Exhibit 5.1.

[23] Although he tried to find another job, he was unable to secure any job interviews. The claimants applied for US visas, which were issued in XXXX 2022. Using these US visas, they left the UAE in XXXX to XXXX XXXX 2022, and made their way to the US-Canada border, where they initiated their asylum claims after transiting through the USA for five (5) days. I note that it is trite law that there is no requirement for refugees to claim asylum in transit countries.

[24] In addition, the claimants did explain that it was always their intention to come to Canada as Canada has a better and safer system for refugees.

Objective Basis

[25] Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to the core allegations, coupled with the following documentary evidence, I find that the claimants have established a prospective risk of being subjected to persecution in Lebanon and then inability to return to the UAE.

[26] The risks that they face is corroborated by the National Documentation Packages for Lebanon and the UAE at Exhibits 3.2 and 3.3. Items 1.6 and 2.1 of the NDP for Lebanon shows that the — that stateless Palestinians in Lebanon lack official identity documents, are unable to obtain citizenship, and have limited access to employment, healthcare, education, and other social services, as well as limited freedom of movement.

[27] While Lebanon is estimated to have between 174,000 and 300,000 Palestinian refugees, the vast majority of these reside within 12 UNWRA refugee camps, or “gatherings.” Living conditions are generally poor, overcrowded, and subject to violence.

[28] Palestinians in Lebanon face generally discriminatory treatment by both state and non-state actors. They are considered “foreigners” and remain barred from employment in many fields, and face restriction in buying property. They largely rely on insufficient assistance provided by the UNRWA.

[29] While Lebanese law does not specify specifically target Palestinians, the impact of the state’s restrictions has led to the Palestinian community facing socio-economic marginalization and experiencing high level of unemployment and poverty, poor infrastructure, and dire housing conditions.

[30] Items 13.1 and 2.1 report that the Lebanese state has not ratified the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, or the 1967 Protocol. It is reported that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon left in extremely difficult circumstances, as the government does not consider local integration of refugees to be a viable solution. It has not allocated land to march — to match the increase in its refugee population.

[31] Item 13.11 reports that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are offered no effective security from the internal Palestine security committees, which allows criminal networks to flourish.

[32] Item 14.2 of the NDP for the UAE reports that the claimants have no rights to return to the UAE under their particular circumstances. Visitors and residents of the UAE require sponsorship from a UAE individual or institution. Individuals are at risk of losing legal residents should their work be terminated. When stateless Palestinians lose work and their residency permits expire without renewal or are otherwise required to exit the UAE, they are not given the opportunity to — or explanation of appeals and become subject to detainment by immigration authorities.

[33] Based on the objective evidence, I find that the claimants’ subjective fear has an objective basis.

State Protection

[34] In refugee determination, the state is presumed to be capable of protecting citizens. To rebut this presumption, the claimant must establish on a balance of probabilities that their state’s protection is inadequate based on clear and convincing evidence. In this case, I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the state in light of their circumstances.

[35] The aforementioned evidence shows that there is a lack of effective rule of law or justice available to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and inadequate protection offered by police and the judiciary.

[36] Accordingly, I find that there is clear, convincing evidence that — there is clear, convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the claimants with adequate protection and that no adequate protection is available to them.

Internal Flight Alternative

[37] For a refugee claim to succeed, a claimant must establish that there is no other place in the country in which he or she can live without facing a serious possibility of persecution or a likely risk of section 97 harm.

[38] Alternatively, a claimant must demonstrate that relocation to another place in the country is unreasonable in their circumstances. In this case, I find that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Lebanon, as the evidence shows that the conditions for stateless Palestinians are similar throughout Lebanon.

[39] Based on the objective of evidence, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative for them in Lebanon.

CONCLUSION

[40] In view of the preceding, I find that the claimants are refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act. Accordingly, I accept their claims.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———