TB9-09331

Parties

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the RPD's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and breached procedural fairness
2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in identifying Saudi Arabia as the sole country of former habitual residence and failing to consider Gaza as an alternative CFHR
3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in assessing whether the appellants would face persecutory treatment in Saudi Arabia due to their Palestinian nationality

Ratio Decidendi

On independent assessment the Principal Appellant has multiple CFHRs (Gaza and Saudi Arabia); documentary and testimonial evidence established a serious possibility of persecution in Gaza on account of political opinion and lack of state protection under Hamas; the Principal Appellant cannot return to Saudi Arabia due to expired status; therefore he meets the Convention refugee definition and his appeal is allowed under IRPA s.111(1)(b). The minors never resided in Gaza, their sole CFHR is Saudi Arabia, and the evidence does not establish a serious possibility of persecution or other protected risks in Saudi Arabia; their appeals are dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Principal appellant allowed as Convention refugee; minor appellants dismissed.

Orders

• Allow Principal Appellant's appeal and set aside the RPD negative determination; substitute a positive determination pursuant to IRPA paragraph 111(1)(b)
• Confirm the RPD's negative determinations for the two minor appellants and dismiss their appeals pursuant to IRPA paragraph 111(1)(a)