2024 RLLR 90

Citation: 2024 RLLR 90
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 12, 2024
Panel: Michal Fox
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Irma Roberts
Country: Syria
RPD Number: VC3-13772
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00362
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case, and I am ready to render my decision orally.

[2] These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee claim of XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

[3] He alleged that he is a stateless Palestinian born in Syria. He is seeking protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The claimant’s allegations are found in his Basic Claim form in Exhibit 2, as well as oral testimony heard today.

[5] In brief summary, the claimant alleged persecution in Syria at the hands of the Syrian government and authorities and security forces due to his posting of anti-government political opinion posted on social media. More specifically, Facebook.

[6] Claimant also alleged in his testimony that he fears the Syrian government due to his religion as a Sunni Muslim.

[7] The claimant alleged that he is a stateless Palestinian born in Syria on XXXX XXXX, 1987.

[8] Claimant left Syria in 2005 for Dubai, in the UAE, United Arab Emirates. The claimant remained employed there until 2014.

[9] The claimant then left the UAE in 2014 and relocated to Sweden. The claimant applied for refugee protection in Sweden. He was denied protection in Sweden, and he was later denied a work permit and residence in Sweden. The claimant is banned from entering Sweden for four (4) years.

[10] When the claimant realized that he was about to be deported from Sweden to Syria, he fled to Canada in 2023 and applied for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

[11] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and that he does have a well-founded fear of persecution in Syria by reason of his political opinion and imputed political opinion, and because of his religion as a Sunni Muslim.

ANALYSIS

[12] The Minister intervened in this case on the issue of programme integrity, identity, and credibility. The Minister, in summary, averred that the claimant has not provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish his identity. I have considered the Minister’s observations in the making of this decision.

Identity

[13] I find the claimant is a stateless Palestinian who was born in Syria.

[14] The claimant provided the following documentary evidence to support his allegations and provided testimony as well on these issues. The claimant holds a Syrian travel document issued to stateless Palestinians who were born in Syria. This is in Exhibit 9 and in other exhibits as well.

[15] The travel document issued by Syria specifically states at the top left corner that this is a travel document and not more than that. It does not indicate that the claimant is a citizen of Syria. See Exhibit 3.1 of the NDP and 3.16 of the NDP.

[16] The claimant also submitted in Exhibit 9 his temporary ID card for Syria. It indicates that the claimant was born in XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Palestinian refugee camp. The claimant testified that when he lived in Syria, he lived in this refugee camp with his parents and siblings. The claimant explained that his grandfather was a Palestinian who went to Syria as a refugee in 1948. And since that time, no matter that his own father, the grandfather’s son and the claimant were born in Syria. They remain refugees, stateless, and cannot obtain citizenship in Syria.

[17] The objective evidence indicates that despite being born in Syria, the claimant would not have access to Syrian citizenship as his own father was not a citizen of Syria. In NDP Tab 3.1, Legislative Decree 276, the Nationality Law of Syria.

[18] The claimant also filed in Exhibit 9, a copy of his family’s UNRWA family record. It states that the claimant’s father and his children, including — which has the claimant’s name in the same document, are refugees in Syria who live in XXXX. There is no evidence to suggest that the claimant has nationality in any other country.

[19] I thus conclude, based on the documentary evidence and the claimant’s testimony that the claimant is a — is both stateless and a Palestinian.

Credibility

[20] A claimant must present clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to credibly establish the facts of his claim on a balance of probabilities. Sworn testimony is presumed to be true unless there are valid reasons to doubt its truthfulness. This presumption does not apply to inferences that are — these are conclusions drawn from facts or speculation for which there is no evidentiary basis. The presumption can be rebutted by inconsistencies, omissions, incoherent or vague testimony, limited knowledge of key elements of the case, or reliance on false documents.

[21] I found the claimant to be a credible witness, and I therefore believe what he has alleged in support of his claim. He testified in a straightforward manner, with no inconsistencies between his testimony and the evidence provided. This included his BOC, his initial immigration forms, interviews with Canadian immigration officers, along with the claim’s other documentary corroborative evidence submitted in this case.

Statelessness and Country of Reference

[22] In order to be found a Convention refugee, the claimant as a stateless person must show that on a balance of probabilities, he would suffer persecution in any one (1) of his countries of former habitual residence, and further that he cannot return to any of the other countries of formal — former habitual residence.

[23] In Maarouf, M-A-A-R-O-U-F, v. Canada, 1994 1 FC 723, it was established that a country of former habitual residence is one where a stateless claimant has had continuous residence of some duration. The claimant need not be legally able to return there. The court stated that in “the concept of former habitual residence seeks to establish a relationship to a state which is broadly comparable to that between a citizen and his country of nationality.”

[24] The evidence in this case supports that the claimant has resided in several countries which were former habitual residences.

[25] One, Syria. The claimant was born in Syria in 1987, and he resided there until 2005. The claimant attended school, and all told, lived there until he was 18 years of age. I thus find that Syria is a former habitual residence.

[26] Two, United Arab Emirates. The claimant lived and worked there from 2005 to 2014. The claimant provided his expired residence card in Exhibit 5 of page 1. His residence expired in 2016, as stated right on the card. The claimant testified that in 2014, he left the UAE for Sweden. The claimant testified that after he was refused refugee status in Sweden in 2017, the Swedish authorities demanded that he apply to the UAE so that he could return there. The claimant thus applied in the intervening years twice for work permit from the UAE and also for a tourist visa. All of these requests were denied. The claimant also stated this in his interviews with CBSA. I thus find that the evidence supports that the claimant lived and worked in the UAE for about nine (9) years, and it is a former habitual residence. I also find that the claimant cannot re-enter the UAE. He has tried three (3) times to enter the country, and all of these attempts have been unsuccessful.

[27] Three, Sweden. The claimant lived in Sweden from 2014 to 2023, approximately nine (9) years. The claimant had hoped to remain there all his life. Claimant applied for refugee protection and when that was rejected, he then applied for a work and resident visa. See Exhibit 5 and his refugee card found in Exhibit 9 and in other exhibits as well. The work and resident visa were rejected, as well as his refugee claim. The claimant testified that he is banned from entering Sweden for four (4) years. This is supported by the evidence in the decision, which is found in Exhibit 5, and the Swedish government’s denial of his ability to reside and work in the country. I thus find that Sweden is a country of former habitual residence, as he lived and worked in Sweden for nine (9) years. I also find the claimant cannot re-enter Sweden.

[28] Four, Germany. The claimant testified in his interviews with CBSA that Sweden — that after Sweden rejected his refugee claim, he went to Germany and lived there for about seven (7) months, applying — attempting to apply for refugee protection. As the claimant had already applied for refugee status in Sweden, the claimant was barred from applying for refugee status in Germany. I find that Germany is not a former habitual residence, as he lived there relatively short time.

[29] In summary, the evidence demonstrates that the claimant cannot return to any of his former habitual residences other than Syria. The jurisprudence establishes that if I find that the claimant is able to return to any of his — any country of his former habitual residences, the claimant must establish his refugee claim. In other words, must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in that country. In this case, it is Syria and only Syria.

The Claim Against Syria

[30] The issue is whether the claimant would suffer persecution in Syria if he were to return to — or to return to Syria.

Subjective Fear

[31] The claimant was terrified of returning to Syria at the time he fled Sweden and also after — here, I am going to repeat this. The claimant was terrified of returning to Syria at the time he fled Sweden. It was for this reason that he tried to obtain refugee status in Germany, although that was unsuccessful. The claimant explained that Syria was in chaos after the war began and persons were being arrested, detained, and disappeared for many arbitrary reasons.

[32] Then, after he learned in 2020 that the authorities had gone looking for him in his family’s home, and had also went to his neighbour’s home in an attempt to find him. He was terrified that he would be arrested, detained, disappeared, or killed by the Syrian authorities. It is for this reason that he fled to Canada and immediately filed his refugee protection case.

[33] I find the claimant has a (inaudible) subjective fear of harm.

Objective Evidence on Syria

[34] The claimant’s subjective fears are objectively well-founded, given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to the claimant’s allegations. Coupled with the documentary evidence, I find the claimant has established a prospective risk of persecution in Syria.

[35] The risk is corroborated by the NDP for Syria found an Exhibit 3.1. As a result of the generalized crisis and chaos prevailing in Syria, the UNHCR has characterized a flight of civilians from Syria as a refugee movement, with the vast majority of Syrian asylum seekers continuing to be in need of international refugee protection. Among those most likely to be in need of protection, are persons seen as opposing the government. This is supported in the NDP in Items 1.6, 1.21, 2.1, 14.3, 14.4, and 14.6.

[36] The United States Department of Human Rights reports at 2.1, and the NDP lists various and significant human rights abuses that are carried out by the regime against their opponents, both real and perceived. This includes unlawful and arbitrary killings, forced disappearances, torture, including torture involving sexual violence, punishment of family members for offences allegedly committed by an individual.

[37] The claimant testified and wrote in his BOC, and also stated in his interview with CBSA, and also provided corroborative documents in Exhibit 5 that the authorities have searched for him in 2020. He also testified that they looked for him as well in the spring of 2024. The claimant believes that this is because he commented on a number of Facebook posts that were anti-regime. He believes this because his own cousin’s husband had been arrested in 2015 for the same reasons, posting and commenting on Facebook posts that were anti-regime. The cousin’s husband was arrested in 2015 and remains disappeared. No one knows where he is. And even if this is not the reason why the authorities are after the claimant, it is more likely than not that for some reason he is deemed to be anti-state. Why else would they be looking for him at his home and his neighbours’ homes as well.

[38] Sources indicate that security forces are constantly searching for opponents of the regime, including by looking for them at their homes and in public places. Authorities check those who travel in and out of the country by official border crossings, which makes someone returning to Syria from outside the country particularly susceptible to arrest.

[39] The NDP further indicates that Syrian law allows its residents to be charged for journalistic activities from abroad, with crimes including undermining the state, and there are examples of people that have been arrested for speaking against the president abroad. See also — see Items 2.1.

[40] See also Tab 1.22, which specifically states that a wide range of categories of individuals have been targeted by the government of Syria, including political activists, protesters, and others who express criticism of a government, and this includes on social media, which the claimant states that he has done.

[41] From this perspective, the claimant’s fears of being stopped and arrested by the regime upon his return to Syria for his real political opinion, which is against the authorities, or for some imputed public opinion against the authorities, I find his fears are well-founded.

Sunni Muslim

[42] The Sunni majority make up the bulk of resistance in the country, and thus has borne the brunt of state repression. As perceived opponents of the Alawite, A-L-A-W-I-T-E, majority government. At NDP Tab 12.1, it is reported that the government has arbitrarily detaining thousands of citizens, mainly Sunnis, without due process, and those who are detained face harsh conditions, including torture and death. NDP 12.1.

[43] I find the objective evidence supports the claimant’s testimony that he also faces a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of the government due to his Sunni Muslim religion, along with his political opinion.

Filing a Refugee Claim

[44] I also find the claimant has established that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Syria, simply by filing refugee claims, both in Canada and in Sweden.

[45] The objective evidence indicates that returnees face a possible screening process, in which border officials may look through phones and other personal items to check for any signs of dissent that might implicate the person. But there are no set rules as to how officials treat returnees. The report further states that if a security official suspects someone, they might detain the person immediately, in which case the person could disappear and be tortured, or the official might allow the person to enter Syria but require the person report at a later date, at which time the person might disappear.

[46] Tab 14.4 of the NDP, a UNHCR report also states the Syrian government may perceive certain acts, including the simple act of filing an asylum claim as evidence of anti-government opinion and thus target the person accordingly.

[47] Tab 1.9 of the NDP, Amnesty International has echoed such findings, noting a 2021 report that, “Syrian officials have viewed refugees returning as having been disloyal to their country, either because of the fact that they fled or because of the place where they sought refuge.” And that they “consequently perceive returnees as supportive of the opposition or armed groups.” That is Tab 14.6 of the NDP.

[48] For all these reasons, I find there is a serious reason to believe — there are serious reasons to believe that the Syrian regime will perceive the claimant as an opponent of the state.

State Protection

[49] I find there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unwilling to provide the claimant with adequate protection. The state authorities are the agent of persecution in the present case. As a result, the — I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this case.

Internal Flight Alternative

[50] Given that the state is in control of the entire country, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Syria. Furthermore, the objective evidence from the UNHCR confirms that an internal flight alternative is generally not accessible for Palestinians from Syria, Tab 1.2. Accordingly, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimant.

CONCLUSION

[51] Based on the above analysis, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee, and I therefore accept his claim. That is the end of my decision.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———