Citation: 2019 RLLR 52
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 8, 2019
Panel: D. Morris, L. Hartslief, J. Kushner
Counsel for the claimant(s): Jasmina Mrkalj-Skelly
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: TB7-24110
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000080-000088
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant, a 74-year-old stateless Palestinian, is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1
DETERMINATION
[2] The panel determines that the claimant is a Convention refugee because she faces a serious possibility of persecution in her country of former habitual residence, Lebanon, due to her membership in a particular social group, namely as the family member of a political opponent of Hezbollah.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The allegations respecting the basis of the claimant’s fear in Lebanon are set out in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form.2
[4] The claimant and several members of her family have been targeted for violence and extortion by armed groups in Lebanon. Most recently, the claimant herself was targeted after her son was kidnapped by Hezbollah after coming into conflict with his wife’s brother, who is a member of Hezbollah. After the claimant attempted to relocate to another part of Lebanon, she was located, threatened and assaulted by members of Hezbollah, who view her and her family as being in opposition to them. Hezbollah view the family as opponents because male members of the family, including her son [XXX], have consistently refused to associate themselves with or otherwise support the group.
[5] The claimant fears that she will be harmed or killed by Hezbollah if she returns to Lebanon.
ANALYSIS
Identity and Statelessness
[6] The claimant was born in Palestine in 1945, fled Palestine during the war in 1948 and lived in [XXX] in Lebanon until she fled to Canada in 2017. Though born in Palestine and living for many years in Lebanon, the claimant has no citizenship in any country.
[7] On a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that the claimant has established that she is a stateless Palestinian whose country of former habitual residence is Lebanon. This is based on her testimony, the testimony of her son [XXX], who appeared as a witness, as well as the claimant’s Lebanon ID Card, Lebanon Travel Document for Palestinian Refugees, Lebanon General Security Travel Document, and her various Canadian Temporary Residence Visas.3
[8] Based on this evidence, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is not a citizen of any country. Her significant period of de facto residence in Lebanon for more than 70 years leads the panel to the conclusion that her only country of former habitual residence is Lebanon. The panel finds that she does not have a right to return to or obtain citizenship in any other country. The country of reference for this claim is therefore determined to be Lebanon.
Credibility
[9] The panel had some credibility concerns with respect to certain aspects of the claimant’s testimony. However, in assessing this case the panel was cognizant of the claimant’s advanced age and her limited formal education.4
[10] The panel’s concerns arose mainly from the claimant’s difficulty in recounting details of incidents set out in her BOC. In testimony, she admitted that her daughter, [XXX] and her son, [XXX] had both been with her while she was completing her BOC and helped her write her narrative.
[11] A thorough review of the BOC shows that, for the most part, the only incidents in which the claimant was directly involved occurred after her son [XXX] had fled the country. The panel is of the view that, more likely than not, the claimant was assisted to recount stories in her BOC that had occurred to other members of her family (as is clear from the narrative) but of which she had little firsthand knowledge. The panel’s concerns were largely addressed by the testimony of her son [XXX] who was able to recount in greater detail the reasons for his flight from Lebanon and how this situation affected his mother:
The claimant’s son [XXX], who is also a stateless Palestinian, fled Lebanon in 2015 and was recognised as a Convention refugee by the Refugee Protection Division in [XXX] 2017.5 [XXX] testimony and the reasons for his recognition as a Convention refugee in Canada, corroborate the claimant’s story as follows: that [XXX] had come into conflict with Hezbollah and with his ex-wife’s brother, [XXX], who was also a member of Hezbollah;
[XXX] had been kidnapped by Hezbollah outside of Beirut in July of 2015 and suffered fairly severe injuries during his captivity;
After [XXX] departed Lebanon the claimant started to receive threats from the same persons who had kidnapped and threatened him, and;
[XXX] had tried to have a committee from [XXX] intervene on his behalf with Hezbollah but that these efforts were rebuffed by [XXX].
[12] As stated above, the panel also considered the claimant’s age and educational background in coming to its decision. The panel finds that the claimant tried to be as forthcoming as possible and to recount events to the best of her ability. As it relates to the events that she experienced following her son’s departure from Lebanon, the panel found the claimant to be credible.
[13] The panel therefore finds that the claimant does have a credible fear of the persons who had attacked her son and that she did start to receive threats after he had finally departed Lebanon.
Re-availment and Delay in Claiming in Canada
[14] While re-availment or delay may not necessarily be determinative of a particular claim, they might be evidence of a lack of subjective fear on behalf of the claimant.
[15] The claimant travelled to Canada on three previous occasions prior to her arrival in [XXX] 2017, returning to Lebanon each time. There are copies of Canadian Temporary Resident Visas on record for each of these trips.6 The last of these was between [XXX] 2014 and [XXX] of 2015 with the claimant returning to Lebanon on [XXX] 2015.
[16] With regard to her previous trips to Canada and return to Lebanon, the claimant testified that it was never her intention to claim refugee status on those trips. The panel finds this consistent with her statements that it was only after [XXX] had finally left Lebanon for good, after being assaulted and tortured by Hezbollah in [XXX] 2015, that the claimant herself came into conflict with a member of Hezbollah and she began to fear for her own safety.
[17] With regard to her most recent trip to Canada, the claimant delayed in making her claim for approximately [XXX] weeks (she arrived in Canada on [XXX] 2017 and submitted her claim on 3 December 2017). In testimony, the claimant stated that her intention was to return to Lebanon once the situation there had settled. However, while in Canada the claimant was informed by her daughter, [XXX], that the claimant’s home in [XXX] had been taken over by Hezbollah and that Hezbollah continued to seek the claimant out. It was then that the claimant realized it would not be possible for her to return to Lebanon.
[18] The panel finds that this explanation is reasonable under the circumstances and is consistent with the explanation provided in her BOC.
[19] The panel therefore finds the claimant’s subjective fear is not impugned by this delay or the fact that she had returned to Lebanon after her previous trips to Canada.
Objective Basis – Country Conditions
[20] The country conditions outlined in the National Documentation Package (NDP) include reports which speak to the systemic discrimination facing Palestinians who reside in Lebanon, as well as the general security conditions in the country, particularly within the Palestinian camps.7 It shows that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon suffer from severe discrimination and are denied basic civil and political rights, regardless of their long term residence in the country.
[21] Lebanon is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention or the 1967 protocol and does not recognize the basic rights of people with refugee status.8
[22] Palestinian refugees who live in Lebanon are denied citizenship rights and are subjected to racism, arbitrary arrest, kidnapping and torture.9
[23] Human rights abuses persist within the Palestinian camps and in Lebanon in general. These include the arbitrary arrest and detention of Palestinians by autonomous Palestinian security groups.10 The documentation confirms the claimant’s allegation that Hezbollah and other factions extra-judicially arrest and abuse refugees.
Authorities failed to observe many provisions of the law, and government security forces, as well as extralegal armed groups such as Hizballah, continued the practice of extrajudicial arrest and detention, including incommunicado detention.
…
NGOs reported that most cases involved vulnerable groups such as refugees … 11
[24] These armed groups operate without the supervision of any official judicial systems.12
[25] The documentation also supports the claimant’s assertion that her family had tried to resolve their issue with Hezbollah through a committee in [XXX]. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] has reported that:
Palestinian groups in refugee camps operated an autonomous and arbitrary system of justice outside the control of the state. For example, local popular committees in the camps attempted to resolve disputes using tribal methods of reconciliation.13
[26] The objective evidence therefore corroborates the general elements of the claimant’s allegations, including the impunity with which Hezbollah and other armed groups operate in Lebanon.
[27] Having considered all of this evidence, the panel finds that the claimant faces more than a mere possibility of persecution based on her membership in a particular social group, namely as the family member of a political opponent of Hezbollah.
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
[28] A state is presumed to be able to provide adequate state protection. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide “clear and convincing evidence.”14 The claimant must establish that state protection in inadequate. If the claimant is able to show the absence of protection anywhere in the country, there will be no internal flight alternative (IFA).
[29] The claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence referenced above make it clear that state protection or relocation within Lebanon are not options for the claimant. Severe discrimination against Palestinians is widespread and systematic throughout all the country, particularly outside of the refugee camps.15 The US Department of State notes that, ” … Hizballah, and other extremist elements operated outside the direction or control of government officials.”16
[30] Within the camps, UNHCR reports that:
Palestinian individuals may reportedly be at risk of being subjected to harassment, threats or abuse at the hands of militant factions in the camps. As the Lebanese authorities have no access to the camps (with the exception of Nahr El-Bared Camp), those at risk can reportedly not seek protection from the Lebanese authorities.17
[31] This is consistent with the claimant’s statement that she did not seek protection from the authorities because Lebanese authorities are not present in the camps and do not protect the refugees there. The panel therefore concludes that the claimant would not be able to access state protection anywhere in Lebanon.
[32] With regard to an internal flight alternative, the panel further notes that the claimant did try to relocate from [XXX] to [XXX] and that Hezbollah was able to locate her there.
[33] The panel therefore finds, on a balance of probabilities, that neither adequate state protection nor an internal flight alternative is available to the claimant.
CONCLUSION
[34] Having considered the totality of the evidence, based on the foregoing analysis, the panel finds the claimant’s fear of persecution in Lebanon to be well-founded. The panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee and therefore accepts her claim.
(signed) D. Morris
Concurred in by: (signed) L. Hartslief
(signed) J. Kushner
May 8, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibit 2
3 Exhibit 1 (Originals are all in the possession of Canadian Immigration authorities).
4 Exhibit 1, Schedule A, question 7.
5 Exhibit 11.
6 Exhibit 1
7 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Lebanon (29 March 2019), item 2.1.
8 Ibid., item 13.5.
9 Ibid., item 13.1.
10 Ibid., item 2.1.
11 Ibid., at p. 9.
12 Ibid., item 13.1.
13 Ibid., item 13.2.
14 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) I, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at pp. 724-726.
15 Exhibit 3, NDP for Lebanon (29 March 2019).
16 Ibid., item 2.1, at p. 1.
17 Ibid., item 13.2, at p. 19.