Categories
All Countries Palestine

2020 RLLR 9

Citation: 2020 RLLR 9
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 22, 2020
Panel: Linda Doutre
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Me Jessica Lipes 
Country: Palestine
RPD Number: MB9-20414
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000060-000065


REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The refugee protection claimant, [XXX], is a citizen of Palestine (Occupied Palestinian Territories), specifically living in the Gaza Strip. He is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant fears Hamas. He lived in the Gaza Strip and was the subject of false accusations made by Hamas. In addition to the insecurity in the region, his apartment was destroyed in the war. Because of that group, the claimant stopped going to the mosque. There is no freedom of expression there, and he does not subscribe to their way of practising Islam.

[3]       The claimant’s problems began in 2008, when he was dating a girl who had brothers in Hamas.

[4]       In [XXX] 2010, the brothers found out about their relationship and disapproved of it. That was when the claimant’s problems began. His girlfriend’s brothers tried to keep her and the claimant from seeing each other. However, one year later, they continued to be in touch with each other.

[5]       In [XXX] 2012, the claimant received a notice to appear from the police in relation to accusations of illicit relations with women in the community. His girlfriend’s brothers were behind the accusations. The claimant was released.

[6]       On [XXX], 2012, some men attacked the claimant after he was tricked by one of his girlfriend’s brothers.

[7]       Because of the constant harassment, the claimant stopped speaking to his girlfriend.

[8]       In [XXX] 2016, he received a call from his ex-girlfriend, who told him that she still loved him and that she did not want to marry the man that her parents had introduced her to.

[9]       Her brothers held this against him and blamed him for the breakdown of their sister’ s marriage.

[10]     On [XXX], 2016, the claimant received a notice to appear from the police, in which he was accused of trying to turn his ex-girlfriend against her family. He was released and went to the hospital to receive treatment.

[11]     On [XXX], 2017, the claimant had to report to the police station, where several accusations were discussed. He began to consider fleeing the country.

[12]     In [XXX] 2017, he applied for a Chinese visa. He was granted the visa, but he realized that Hamas had forbidden him from leaving the country.

[13]     On [XXX], 2018, the claimant was attacked. He managed to flee Gaza via Egypt with the help of an uncle.

[14]     He took steps to obtain a Chinese visa. However, in order to obtain the document, he had to apply for it in Gaza, which forced him to go back. He was arrested upon his arrival in Gaza.

[15]     The claimant then obtained his Chinese visa and again fled with the help of his uncle.

DETERMINATION

[16]     Having analyzed all the evidence on the record, the panel determines that the claimant is a “Convention refugee” under section 96 of the IRPA by reason of his imputed political opinion and religion.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[17]     The panel is satisfied as to the claimant’s identity, which was established by means of the photocopy of the travel document he was issued by the Palestinian authorities1 and his testimony.

Credibility

[18]     The claimant testified relatively well at the hearing. His testimony was spontaneous and forthright. He explained the reasons for his problems with his ex-girlfriend’s brothers. Relationships between men and women are difficult to maintain in Palestine. He gave a good account of the problems that this caused him. He clearly explained the situation he would find himself in if he returned to the Gaza Strip. He made several clarifications for the panel and did not seek to embellish his story. No contradictions were noted between the testimony he gave at the hearing, the statements he made to the immigration authorities, and the documents he filed. The panel is of the opinion that the claimant’s testimony was credible.

[19]     Furthermore, the documentary evidence, including that contained in the package on the Occupied Territories2 and the documents filed by the claimant, namely, the medical certificates,3 notices to appear issued by the authorities4 and emails,5 and the objective documentation on the Islamist radicalization of Gaza and honour crimes,6 corroborate the claimant’s allegations:

2.1

In Gaza the terrorist organization Hamas exercised de facto authority. The security apparatus of the Hamas de facto government in Gaza largely mirrored the West Bank. [… ] In some instances the Hamas de facto “civilian” authorities utilized the Hamas movement’ s military wing to crack clown on internal dissent.7

4.8

Hamas’ primary base of operation is in the Gaza Strip, the coastal enclave of 1.7 million Palestinians, where it has remained the de facto authority since shortly after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal in 2005.8

State protection

[20]     The claimant sought to obtain the help of a lawyer to defend himself against the state, to no avail. Given that the agents of persecution are also potentially members of the security forces, it is understandable that the claimant had difficulty obtaining state protection:

2.1

With respect to Hamas: reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, systematic torture, and arbitrary detention by Hamas officials; political prisoners; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including violence, threats of violence, …9

[21]     Considering the evidence in this case, the panel is of the opinion that the claimant would be unable to obtain assistance from the authorities, and therefore concludes that the state would be unable to provide him with adequate protection.

Internal flight alternative

[22]     The panel assessed whether a viable internal flight alternative is available to the claimant, that is, whether there is another part of the country where he would not face a reasonable fear of persecution; then, if the first prong is not satisfied, the panel must assess whether it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek refuge by moving to another part of the country.

[23]     Given the documentary evidence indicating all the problems experienced by Palestinians fearing Hamas and given the claimant’s particular circumstances, the panel concludes that no internal flight alternative would be available to him should he return there.

[24]     The panel is of the opinion that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution if he returned to the Gaza Strip.

CONCLUSION

[25]     The panel allows the refugee protection claim and determines that the claimant is a “Convention refugee.”

DECISION

[26]     The refugee protection claim filed by [XXX] is allowed.

(signed)           Linda Doutre

September 22, 2020

1 Document 1 – Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency / Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
2 Document 3 – National Documentation Package on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, March 31, 2020.
3 Document 4- Exhibits E-1, E-2 and E-4.
4 Document 4 – Exhibits E-3, E-7 and E-8.
5 Document 4 – Exhibit E-24.
6 Document 4- Exhibits E-14 and E-20.
7 Document 3, Tab 2.1: United States, Department of State, March 11, 2020, Israel, West Bank, and Gaza – West Bank and Gaza. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019.
8 Document 3, Tab 4.8: Council on Foreign Relations, August 1, 2014, CFR Backgrounders: Hamas.
9 Supra, footnote 7.