TB9-18627

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-18627 TB9-18628 / TB9-18629 / TB9-18630 TB9-18631 / TB9-18632 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 26, 2020 Date de la décision Panel M. Lee Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Steven Blakey Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre

REASONS FOR DECISION

OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Second Appellant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Third Appellant), XXXX XXXX XXXX (Fourth Appellant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Fifth Appellant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Minor Appellant) appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated July 3, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The Second Appellant is a citizen of Jordan, and all of the other Appellants are Stateless Palestinians. [2] The Principal Appellant is the designated representative for the Minor Appellant. At the time of this appeal, the Fifth Appellant became the age of majority.

DETERMINATION [3] The decision is split. [4] In accordance with paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),1 the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismisses the appeal of the Second Appellant. [5] In accordance with paragraph 111(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),2 the RAD allows the appeal for the Principal, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Minor Appellants.

BACKGROUND [6] The Appellants allege that they cannot return to Palestine because of an ongoing family feud between the Principal Appellant and his family. The Principal Appellant and his children (the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Minor Appellants) were all born in Palestine and have no rights to citizenship anywhere in the world. The Second Appellant is a citizen of Jordan, but is unable to pass her citizenship onto her children or to the Principal Appellant. [7] The Appellants all previously resided in XXXX, West Bank. However, the Principal Appellant began residing in China for employment purposes in 2003 while making trips back to see his family in West Bank. The rest of the Appellants joined the Principal Appellant in China in 2010. The Third Appellant came to Canada to study in 2015. The rest of the Appellants came to Canada from China on XXXX XXXX, 2017 so that the children could study in Canada. After the Principal Appellant divested himself of his business in China, they made their refugee claims on December 15, 2017. [8] The RPD heard the claims on April 15, 2019. The RPD denied their refugee claims on July 3, 2019, on the determinative issue of credibility. The Appellants allege that the RPD erred in its assessment. The RAD carefully considered the merits of their claim in its decision below.

ANALYSIS No new evidence and no oral hearing [9] The Appellants did not submit any new evidence pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, nor are they requesting an oral hearing, pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. Palestine is only country of reference being considered [10] For the purpose of clarification, the RAD will only assess Palestine as the country of habitual residence for the Principal Appellant and the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Minor Appellants (the children). The RAD considered that the Principal Appellant has regularly resided in China since 2003. His children and the Second Appellant have resided in China with him since 2010. Despite the Principal Appellant's 15- year residence in China, the RAD finds on a balance of probabilities that they do not have citizenship or any permanent residency in China, as confirmed with the numerous renewed visas in their Jordanian travel documents.3 Second Appellant is neither a Convention Refugee nor person in need of protection [11] The Second Appellant is a citizen of Jordan, and she is not stateless, despite having resided in Palestine with her family after her marriage in 1996. Therefore, her refugee claim is against her country of citizenship, which is Jordan. The RPD rejected the Second Appellant's belief that she might not have Jordanian citizenship any longer because she has been outside of Jordan for many years.4

The RPD found that the Second Appellant entered Canada on a valid Jordanian passport and had received a permanent residence permit to reside in Palestine in 2007.5 Furthermore, none of the Principal Appellant's family members have caused her any trouble.6 [12] The Appellants did not make any submissions in their memorandum to dispute the RPD's findings. After its independent assessment, the RAD agrees with the RPD's findings. The RAD finds that the Second Appellant's belief that she no longer has Jordanian citizenship is speculative. The Second Appellant's Jordanian passport was issued as recently as XXXX XXXX, 2016.7 As the Second Appellant was able to legally enter Canada on this valid passport, the RAD finds on a balance of probabilities, that she is currently still a citizen of Jordan. She also explained that her family eventually accepted her marriage to the Principal Appellant, which was the reason for the breakdown in the Principal Appellant's relationship with his own family.8 [13] The Second Appellant did not indicate any fear of returning to Jordan, and based her refugee claim on the Principal Appellant's allegations against Palestine.9 Therefore, the RAD finds that the Second Appellant is able to return to Jordan, and she would not face a serious possibility of persecution if she were to return, nor would she face a personalized risk to her life, of torture, or of

cruel and unusual punishment. [14] Therefore, the RPD's findings for the Second Appellant are upheld. Assessment of letter of disavowal is in error [15] The RAD agrees with the Appellants, and finds that the RPD's assessment of the Principal Appellant's letter of disavowal is erroneous. The letter is signed by the Principal Appellant's father on XXXX XXXX, 1996, essentially disowning him from the family.10 In its decision, the RPD found that the letter did not mention the undesirable marriage nor any declaration of an honour killing.11 The RPD also found that the letter was too vague.12 Furthermore, the RPD found that if it was true that the marriage was dishonouring to the family, then the Principal Appellant's father would not need to specify that he was not responsible for him.13 [16] The Appellants submit that RPD erred in using a lack of corroborating evidence as a basis to disbelieve the allegations.14 The Appellants further submit that the letter must be considered for what it does say, not for what it does not say.15 Also, the Appellants submit that the RPD did not doubt the provenance of the letter that the Principal Appellant's father signed it or that he intended to disavowal the Principal Appellant, and instead focused on what the letter did not convey.16 [17] After carefully reviewing the letter and the oral testimony, the RAD agrees with the Appellants. The letter

is dated on XXXX XXXX, 1996, which is consistent with the Appellants' Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative regarding when the Principal Appellant's father disowned him.17 The letter is signed by a lawyer and a witness, and so it is a sworn statement, which carries more weight than a mere support letter. The RPD did not make any clear findings regarding the letter being fraudulent, and the RAD does not find that there is any reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter, on its face.18 [18] The contents of the letter indicate that the Principal Appellant "disobeyed" his father and "ignored family rules and traditions", which is consistent with the Principal Appellant's allegations, as he chose to marry the Second Appellant against the wishes of his family. Even though "different reasons" is not specified, the RAD finds that the content that is stated within the letter is sufficiently consistent with the Appellants' allegations. It is clear that this is a letter showing that the father is intending to disown the Principal Appellant for failing to comply with the family's demands. The purpose of the letter is uncontradicted and consistent with the allegations. The Second Appellant also testified consistently about the difference in norms and expectations from their families and how this was a challenge for them at the time they decided to marry.19 The RAD finds on a balance of

probabilities that the Principal Appellant was disowned by his family for marrying the Second Appellant. Therefore, the RPD's finding is in error. RPD erred in failing to give weight to letters [19] In its decision, the RPD gave no weight to the two letters adduced by family members.20 The RPD also did not give any weight to the Ministry of Interior's letter as it was too vague.21 The RPD found that all of the letters from family members and friends were requested for the purpose of the hearing.22 The RPD concluded that the honour killing story was fabricated to justify the claim.23 [20] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in finding that the support letters were self-serving. Given that the Appellants' fear is based on the father's disavowal and decision to pursue an honour killing, it was natural that the Principal Appellant would ask his family to write letters regarding the nature of his father's disavowal for the purpose of the claim.24 Regarding the letter from the Ministry of the Interior, the Appellants submit that the RPD erred by mis-stating the Principal Appellant's testimony, and finding that the letter contradicted the testimony.25 [21] The Appellants provided letters from the Principal Appellant's two sister and a friend, along with the letter from the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior regarding the Principal Appellant's two arrests.26 [22] The letter from

the Ministry of the Interior describes the Principal Appellant's arrests and indicates that the Principal Appellant was arrested for family reasons and released without charges.27 The letter is signed by the "XXXX Police directorate/Palestinian National Authority".28 There is also a stamp of the Palestinian National Authority.29 [23] The RPD found that the Palestinian Authority had no jurisdiction to arrest the Appellant on Israeli territory and even less to put him in a Palestinian jail.30 In Area C where the Appellants allegedly reside, the Palestinians are ruled by a dual legal system: by military law and military courts, and by Israeli settlers by civilian law and courts.31 The RPD is correct to state that the Palestinian judiciary and police have no authority in Area C.32 However, after carefully reviewing the Appellants' BOC narrative, the incidents that lead to the arrests in 2006 and 2010 took place in Area A, and not Area C.33 [24] Area A is under full administrative and security control of the Palestinian Authority.34 In 2006, he went to visit his friend who resided in Area A to see if he could resolve his family feud. This led to the conflict between the Principal Appellant and his brother. This is also corroborated by this friend's support letter.35 In 2010, the Principal Appellant went to visit a friend in Area A and was eating at restaurant when he was arrested

once again.36 Therefore, the RAD finds that the RPD erred in finding that the letter from the Palestinian Authority was inconsistent with the jurisdiction of police authorities that would be able to arrest the Principal Appellant. [25] All of the support letters are dated XXXX XXXX, 2019.37 The letters are all notarized by different lawyers in a similar format, with a computerized image of their passports to verify their identities. At face value, the contents of the letters are consistent with the Appellants' allegations regarding the family dispute and the Principal Appellant's arrests. The letters are notarized by a lawyer, which carries more weight than a mere unsworn support letter. [26] As there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of these letters at face value, and the contents of these letters are consistent with the allegations, the RAD finds that the RPD erred in failing to give proper weight to these letters. Continual delay, revailment demonstrates a complete lack of subjective fear [27] The RAD finds that the Appellants are entirely lacking in subjective fear, and this is concerning to the claim. The Principal Appellant has not lived in Palestine, where he alleges that he will be harmed by his family, for the last fifteen years. The rest of the Appellants moved to China to join the Principal Appellant in 2010, and none of them have returned to Palestine for the

last 7 years at the time they entered Canada. [28] The Appellants are very well-travelled and clearly have financial means to have made a refugee claim at a much earlier date. The Principal Appellant alleges that there has been a threat of harm from his brother since 1996. The Principal Appellant further alleges that his brother had him arbitrarily detained in 2006 and again in 2010, and had attempted to shoot at him in 2003. [29] The Appellants were motivated to come to Canada primarily to ensure their children would obtain post-secondary education. The Appellants entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017. They waited 10 months until they made their refugee claim. During that time, the Principal Appellant returned to China on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and again in XXXX 2017, to wrap up his business interests. The Principal Appellant also made a trip to the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2017 for a business meeting. The Appellants made their refugee claims in December 2017. The RAD finds that the Appellants merely made a refugee claim at a time that was most convenient to them. The RAD does not find that this is characteristic of individuals who are truly fearing for their lives. [30] Nonetheless, in spite of the lack of subjective fear, the RAD finds this in and of itself is insufficient to dismiss the claim entirely. Residual profile as Palestinians living in the West Bank [31] The RPD found that

the Principal Appellant's fear of Israeli settlers in the West Bank were general risks that were insufficient to meet the burden of proof to justify a need for international protection.38 The RAD disagrees that this is a generalized risk, and finds that the RPD erred by failing to assess this fear under Section 96 of the Convention, regarding persecution based on one's ethnicity. [32] During questions and submissions from counsel at the RPD, it was submitted that the Appellants as Palestinians, would also face severe discrimination amounting to persecution from Israeli settlers and the army if they were to return to the West Bank.39 [33] Even if the Appellants were found not to be credible in their allegations regarding their fear of the Principal Appellant's family, the RAD finds that the Appellants have a residual profile of being Palestinians residing in a region of the West Bank that is governed by Israelis. The Appellants previously resided in the city of Hebron, and this is confirmed by the Appellants' Palestinian identity cards.40 The Appellants alleged that they lived in Area C within XXXX. [34] According to the documentary evidence, the Palestinian Authority has no authority over either Israeli or Palestinian residents in Area C of the West Bank, where Israel retains both security and civil control.41 Freedom of movement remains extremely limited for residents of West

Bank to travel between the divided areas. There are 32 checkpoints along the West Bank barrier.42 Palestinians are monitored at these checkpoints which are maintained by Israel.43 Violence by Israeli security troops against Palestinians has continued for a long time and takes place daily.44 [35] During questioning from counsel, the Principal Appellant testified that residents in Area C are subjected to violence from settlers and armed authorities.45 He also testified that it is difficult to move from place to place because of the checkpoints.46 This is consistent with the documentary evidence. Israeli settlers are known to carry out attacks against Palestinians, on their property and their mosques.47 Many religious leaders and politicians have given their support for these attacks while some have condemned them.48 Israeli authorities have intensified settlement expansion and land appropriation throughout the occupied Palestinian Territories. In particular, Israeli authorities announced and issued tenders for tens of thousands of new settlement units in East Jerusalem and across the rest of the West Bank.49 The RAD finds that the documentary evidence shows that conditions presently continue to worsen for Palestinians residing in the West Bank. [36] In XXXX, there have been long-standing prohibitions limiting Palestinian presence which tightened in October 2015 and remain in

force.50 In one neighbourhood, Israeli forces subjected Palestinian residents to oppressive searches and prevented the entry of other Palestinians while allowing free movement for Israeli settlers.51 As indicated above, this is where the Appellants resided in the West Bank. [37] The violence, mistreatment and restriction of movement by Israeli authorities towards Palestinian shows persecution based on the Appellants' ethnicity, and the RAD finds that this warrants international protection. [38] Even if the Appellants did not face any personalized risk to their lives from the family feud, the RAD finds that the Principal Appellant and his children would face a serious possibility of persecution based on their ethnicity as Palestinians living in the West Bank region controlled by Israelis, if they were to return to Palestine. No state protection [39] In its decision, the RPD indicated that state protection and internal flight alternative (IFA) were also determinative issues.52 However, the RAD agrees with the Appellants, and finds that the RPD did not apply the IFA legal test nor did it properly assess the availability of state protection.53 The RAD conducted its own independent assessment of these issues below. [40] According to the United States Department of State report, Israeli authorities maintained their West Bank security presence, and took steps to investigate and punish

abuse and corruption. However, there were reports of failure to take disciplinary action in cases of abuse. Non-governmental organizations reported that impunity among Israeli forces remained a problem, as mechanisms for investigation allegations were not effective. As well, Israeli security forces were criticized because of a lack of effort to investigate reports of killing of civilians. [41] Given the current country conditions, the RAD finds that there would not be adequate state protection for the Appellants, as state protection would not be forthcoming to them, and they have rebutted the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities. No viable internal flight alternative [42] The RAD disagrees with the RPD, and find that the Appellants cannot simply relocate to Areas A or C and expect to live safe and reasonable lives.54 [43] A viable IFA must be safe and accessible for the Appellants. The RAD notes that the documentary evidence, in a response to information request at item 14.5, indicates that freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank is nearly non-existent. Therefore, the RAD finds that the Appellants would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Palestine. [44] Therefore, for the reasons above, and after considering all of the evidence in this claim, the RAD finds that the Principal, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Appellants are Convention Refugees because of their ethnicity as Palestinians residing in the West Bank.

CONCLUSION [45] The decision is split. [46] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Second Appellant, a citizen of Jordan, is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [47] The appeal is allowed for the remainder of the Appellants. The RAD substitutes its own decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees. (signed) "M. Lee" M. Lee February 26, 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Ibid. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 8, paragraph 23. 5 Ibid. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 9, paragraph 24. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at page 159. 8 RPD Hearing Recording, April 15, 2019, at 28:40. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, Basis of Claim. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at page 1154. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 10, paragraph 32. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at pages 10-11, paragraph 33. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 11, paragraph 35. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appelllants' Memorandum, at page 55, paragraph 44. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appelllants' Memorandum, at page 57, paragraph 51. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum,

at pages 54-55, paragraph 43. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at page 1154. 18 Ibid. 19 RPD Hearing Recording, April 15, 2019, at 26:00. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 14, paragraph 44. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 15, paragraph 44. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 61, paragraph 65. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 62, paragraph 69. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at pages 1160-1170. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at page 1157. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 14, paragraph 43. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Palestine, version 29 March 2019, item 2.21, Collapsing Prospects: Palestinians in Area C, West Bank. Gate48; Palestine Link, June 2016. 32 Ibid. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative, at pages 31-32. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Palestine, version 29 March 2019, item 2.21, Collapsing Prospects: Palestinians in Area C, West Bank. Gate48; Palestine Link, June 2016. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at page 1164. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative, at page 32. 37

Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at pages 1160-1170. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 8, paragraph 21. 39 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Transcript, at page 38, lines 579-581. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Palestine, version 29 March 2019, item 2.1, Israel, Goaln Heights, West Bank, and Gaza- West Bank and Gaza. Country Reports on Human Rights for 2018. United States. Department of State. 13 March 2019. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Palestine, version 29 March 2019, item 2.12, Palestinians in the West Bank, Finland. Finnish Immigration Service. 20 August 2015. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 RPD Hearing Recording, April 15, 2019, at 1:28:50. 46 RPD Hearing Recording, April 15, 2019, at 1:32:38. 47 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Palestine, version 29 March 2019, item 2.12, Palestinians in the West Bank, Finland. Finnish Immigration Service. 20 August 2015. 48 Ibid. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Palestine, version 29 March 2019, item 2.2, Israeli and Occupied Palestinian Territories. Amnesty International Report 2017/2018: The State of the World's Human Rights. Amnesty International. 22 February 2018. 50 Ibid. 51

Ibid. 52 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 6, paragraph 16. 53 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 50, paragraphs 26-27. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 15, paragraph 45. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-18627 TB9-18628 / TB9-18629 / TB9-18630 TB9-18631 / TB9-18632 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français