2024 RLLR 52

Citation: 2024 RLLR 52
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 20, 2024
Panel: Brendan Walker
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Palestine
RPD Number: TC3-37743
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00128
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: Okay. So, this is the decision of the refugee protection for the claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number TC3-37743. The claimant is a stateless Palestinian from the West Bank of the occupied Palestinian territories and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] The full allegations are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form. The claimant fears persecution from the Israeli authorities and the Israeli settlers because of his Palestinian ethnicity.

[3] The Panel finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution because of his Palestinian ethnicity. The Panel therefore finds the claimant is a Convention refugee.

[4] The Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant’s identity has been established based upon his passport issued by the Palestinian Authority and his Canadian visa.

[5] The claimant testified that he lived his entire life in the West Bank, except for a period between 1983 and 1985, when he attended school in Jordan. The claimant testified that he wanted to stay in Jordan, but he had to leave since he did not want to join the military.

[6] The claimant — the Panel finds that the claimant has established a significant period of a de facto residency in Jordan. Therefore, the Panel finds that the claimant’s country of former habitual residence in this matter is the West Bank and Jordan.

[7] As for the country of Jordan, the claimant states that he has no right of return to Jordan and live there permanently. The Panel finds that the claimant has no right to return to Jordan, as he was only in Jordan on a temporary study permit from 1983 to 1985.

[8] The testimony that is given under oath is presumed to be true, unless there is a valid reason to doubt its truthfulness. The Panel does not have any valid reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant’s allegations. The Panel has assessed the claimant’s testimony has found the claimant to be a credible witness.

[9] The Panel finds that the claimant’s testimony to be genuine and spontaneous, as expected from someone telling their own story. The claimant did not attempt to embellish his testimony. While the claimant testified, there was no material inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions.

[10] The claimant testified about how he was arrested several times by the Israeli police and/or the army. The claimant testified that he would be held for short periods of time, from anywhere from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant testified that the reason for these arrests were that he did not have a permit to enter Israel, mistaken identity, and sometimes no reason was given.

[11] The claimant also testified about how he feared the Israeli settlers, who would come on his land and threaten to kill him and beat him up in front of his children. The claimant also testified that he would — that they would steal his crops. The claimant testified that nothing was ever done because he is Palestinian and they are Israeli.

[12] Finally, the claimant testified that he decided to leave the West Bank when he was shot at by the Israeli army just for — because he is — he was a Palestinian who was walking home.

[13] The claimant testified that he fears returning to the West Bank because every day there is fighting and killing at the checkpoints and people are arrested.

[14] The Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that there is sufficient, credible, and trustworthy evidence to establish the claimant’s allegations.

[15] The Panel also finds that the claimant has established that he has a subjective fear if he returns to the West Bank.

[16] The Panel notes that an assessment of risk is on a forward-facing basis. When deciding on whether the discrimination the claimant faces in the West Bank rises to the level of persecution, the Panel has to consider the UNHRC — CR’s Handbook on the Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, which states that the discrimination may amount to persecution where measures of discrimination lead to the consequences of a substantially prejudicial in nature for the person concerned. Example, serious restrictions on his right to earn a living.

[17] Upon applying the above framework of analysis in the context of the claimant’s particular circumstances and the country conditions evidence set out below, the Panel finds that the claimant has established a forward-facing serious possibility of persecution and discrimination amounting to persecution in the occupied Palestinian territory.

[18] The claimant’s fear of returning to the West Bank is supported by the objective documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package. Tab 1.7 of the National Documentation Package indicates that the Israeli security forces maintains responsibility for 82.5 percent of the West Bank, including Area B, where the Palestinian Authority has administrative control, and Area C, where the Israeli maintain administrative control.

[19] The National Documentation Package, Tab 1.36 states that since April-May to — 2021, an escalation of violence between Israel and the Palestine across all territories has led to an increase of security incidents and civilian casualties. Tab 10.1 of the NDP reports about the excessive use of force by the Israeli army in the occupied territories.

[20] Tab 2.1 summarizes 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 killing, torture, or the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the Israeli forces, arbitrary arrests or detention, arbitrary, unlawful interference with privacy, punishment of family members for alleged offences by a relative, serious restrictions on freedom of movement and resistance, including arbitrary, unlawful interference with privacy, family, and homes of Palestinians.

[21] Each of these violations disproportionately impact Palestinians, including crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting Palestinians. The same NDP source further reports that security checkpoints, settlements, and barriers constrain Palestinians movements in the West Bank.

[22] With respect to Israeli citizens against Palestinian civilians, the same objective sources note — above, indicate that there is an 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 the human rights groups frequently assert that they do 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.

[23] The same NDP Tab 2.1 report that the Israeli and Palestinian government forces or their agents commit unlawful or unjust killings. The foregoing objective sources contain more reports of arbitrary arrests and detentions, stating that Israeli prosecutes persons and residents of the West Bank under military law and Israeli settlers in the West Bank under criminal and civil law.

[24] Given the documentary evidence before the Panel, the Panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution. Therefore, the Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would face persecution if he returned to the West Bank.

[25] States are presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens, except in situation where the state is in a state of complete breakdown. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection is inadequate.

[26] Tab 2.4 of the NDP for the Palestinian territory indicates that Israeli authorities are not accountable in any way to Palestinians for their conduct towards them. Tab 2.1 of the NDP states that Israeli authorities do not adequately pursue steps to address the impunity or abusive conduct by Israeli authorities or settlers.

[27] In light of this objective evidence showing that no hope, no help, or state protection is available to Palestinians in the West Bank, the Panel finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence in this case.

[28] The Panel has also considered whether there is a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. However, there exists an ongoing violence in the region and a serious possibility of persecution throughout the occupied territory.

[29] Since the Israeli state is as — the agent of persecution and is in control of the West Bank, the Panel finds that the claimant does not have a viable internal flight alternative within the occupied Palestinian territory.

[30] Based on all the evidence, the Panel finds that the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution and that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted on a Convention ground should he return to the West Bank of the occupied Palestinian territory today.

[31] The Panel also finds that the claimant cannot return to Jordan.

[32] As such, the Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and his claim is accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———