TB9-29131

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-29131 TB9-29132 / TB9-29133 / TB9-29134 TB9-29135 / TB9-29136 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal

XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 7, 2020 Date de la décision Panel M. Lee Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Joshua A Blum Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant), XXXX XXXX XXXX (Second Appellant), XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX (Minor Appellants), citizens of Lebanon, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated October 3, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION [2] In accordance with paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),1 the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) allows the appeal for the Appellants and substitutes its decision to find that they are Convention Refugees.

BACKGROUND [3] The Appellants allege to fear persecution in Lebanon because of their ethnicity as Stateless Palestinians. The Appellants also allege that they cannot return to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as their residency permits have expired. The Appellants travelled to the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2018. They crossed into the Canadian border on June 24, 2018 and made their refugee claims at the port of entry. [4] The RPD heard their claims on August 28, 2019. The RPD found that Lebanon and the UAE were countries of former habitual residence. The RPD found that the Appellants would not face a serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon, and denied their refugee claims on October 3, 2019. [5] The Appellants submit that the RPD made several errors in its credibility assessment. The RAD carefully considered the merits of their appeal in its decision below. Role of the RAD [6] According to the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling in Huruglica,2 the RAD will review decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent analysis of the evidence. [7] The RAD will defer to certain findings of the RPD where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing the oral evidence at the hearing.

ANALYSIS New evidence application [8] The Appellants made an application to submit new evidence pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.3 The Appellants provided a sworn affidavit and three recent news articles regarding the condition of Stateless Palestinians living in Lebanon.4 Affidavit rejected, news articles accepted [9] According to subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, for new evidence to be accepted, evidence must have arisen after the rejection of the claim, or that it was not reasonably available at the time or rejection, or that the person could not have reasonably been expected in the circumstances to have presented it at the time of rejection. [10] In the affidavit, the Principal Appellant gives further elaboration on the responses he was asked at the hearing.5 The Principal Appellant also explains why he disagrees with the RPD's decision. The Appellants were represented by counsel at their hearing. The evidence contained in his affidavit did not arise after the rejection of the claim, as they are descriptions of what happened to him in Lebanon. The RAD finds that the Principal Appellant had the opportunity to give full responses on the day of the hearing; and so, the RAD finds that these responses were reasonably available to him at the time of rejection; and he could have been expected to have presented these responses at the time of rejection. An appeal is not an

opportunity for a de novo hearing, nor is it an opportunity to correct a deficient record. Therefore, the RAD finds that the affidavit does not meet any of the criteria under subsection 110(4) and it is rejected. [11] The RAD finds that each of the three news articles6 were published after October 3, 2019, and so they arose after the rejection of the claim; these articles were not available to them at the time of rejection and they could not have been expected to have provided these articles at the time of rejection. [12] New evidence must also be credible, relevant and new to be accepted; in accordance with the factors identified in the Federal Court decisions of Raza7 and Singh8. All three articles are from credible news sources including Human Rights Watch, and the Arab Weekly. The articles discuss recent conditions of the treatment of stateless Palestinians and the refugee camp conditions, which is relevant to the Appellants' claim. These articles are new, as they were recently published after the rejection of the claim. Therefore, the new evidence is accepted, and will be assessed in the RAD's decision. [13] The RAD also considered whether the new evidence would require an oral hearing, pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. Three criteria must be met in order for a hearing to be granted. For an oral hearing to be granted, all three criteria must be met: the evidence

must raise a serious issue with respect to credibility, it must be central to the decision, and if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [14] The RAD finds that accepting the news articles would not justify allowing or dismissing the claim. At most, the articles support the Appellants' allegations, but the articles alone would not be determinative of the claim. Therefore, the RAD rejects the request for an oral hearing. RPD erred in finding that Appellants would not face serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon [15] A stateless person can be found to be a refugee if they demonstrate that they cannot return to either country of former habitual residence, and that they would face a serious possibility of persecution in at least one of these countries. According to the following legal test in Thabet v. Canada is applicable [Emphasis added below]: ...a stateless person must show that, on a balance of probabilities he or she would suffer persecution in any country of former habitual residence and that he or she cannot return to any of his or her other countries of former habitual residence.9 [16] In this case, the RPD correctly found that the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon were the two countries of former habitual residence for the Appellants. [17] None of the Appellants can return to the UAE. The Principal Appellant's residency card has

been cancelled since he has since lost his job. The other Appellants were reliant on the Principal Appellant's residency and work permit. This is not disputed by the Appellants, and the RAD finds that the RPD's analysis regarding their inability to return to the UAE is correct. [18] However, the RAD finds that the RPD erred by finding that the Appellants would not face a serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon based on their residual profile as Stateless Palestinians living in Lebanon. The RAD's assessment is below. RPD erred by finding that the Principal Appellant's description of beating was inconsistent [19] The RPD found that the Principal Appellant was not credible regarding his account of being beaten and summoned by Fatah while in Lebanon.10 The RPD found that the Principal Appellant indicated he was hit in the head in his Basis of Claim (BOC); although he indicated he was hit in the back with a metal object in his testimony.11 The RPD found it was unlikely that the Principal Appellant would not mention that he was hit in the head during his initial testimony.12 [20] The Appellants submit that the RPD mis-stated the oral recording, and that there was no inconsistency regarding the Principal Appellant's description of how he was beaten.13 The Principal Appellant initially indicated he was hit in the head, and then said he was hit in the head and the back. [21] The

RAD has listened to the oral recording of the hearing, and agrees with the Appellants. The Principal Appellant initially testified that he was hit in the head.14 When the RPD confronted the Principal Appellant with the doctor's notice which indicated he had injuries on his head and back, the Principal Appellant then indicated that he was also hit in the back as well, but he did not learn this until he went to the hospital as he had passed out after he was hit on the head.15 Therefore, the RAD finds that the RPD mis-quoted the oral record, and therefore its finding is in error. RPD was correct to impugn Appellants' credibility for having little information about identity of agents of persecution [22] The RPD found that the Principal Appellant was unable to clearly testify as to the name, rank, or militant group of his attackers.16 The Appellants also submit that the RPD erred by impugning their credibility for not knowing the name and rank of the agents of persecution.17 The Appellants did not have a detailed relationship with this group and were simply advised by an onlooker that this group was affiliated with the Alawites.18 [23] It remains the Appellants' burden to demonstrate that they are in fact being persecuted by three different militant groups in Lebanon: the Alawites, the Fatah Movement, and potentially Hezbollah if they return to Lebanon. In their testimony, the

Appellants allege that a group of Alawites incidentally overheard the Principal Appellant complaining about preferential treatment at a local hospital. There is no indication in the Appellants' evidence that their one verbal complaint resulted in them receiving priority treatment. Nonetheless, this one incident allegedly led to this group of Alawites making racially-motivated threats and beating the Principal Appellant outside the hospital. Eventually, as a result of this one incident, the Principal Appellant had been summoned by the local Fatah movement at his refugee camp.19 The Principal Appellant also fears he will be pursued by Hezbollah as a result of the Alawites' strong relationship with them.20 [24] The Principal Appellant's knowledge of the identity of these attackers stems from the sole conversation he had with the hospital receptionist and his observation of the attackers' accent. He does not know their names or their ranks, and so it is uncertain how the alleged group of Alawites would be able to locate him after the hospital attack. It is also uncertain how they would have the resources and connections to partner with other militant groups to persecute the Principal Appellant, his family, and his brother, in the way that the Appellants described. Furthermore, the Appellants and the agents of persecution are strangers to each other. They have not encountered one

previously another aside from the one incident in front of the hospital. The RAD finds that the Principal Appellant had very little knowledge about the identity and capability of the agents of persecution. Therefore, the RAD finds that the Principal Appellant's belief that he would be a person of interest to Hezbollah as a result of the beating outside the hospital by a group of people from an Alawi village, is based on speculation. [25] In their evidence, the Appellants provided numerous new articles about the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon, along with 57 pages of post-hearing submissions and more news articles.21 The Appellants provided one article which indicates that there is an ongoing conflict between a minority Alawite district in Tripoli and the Sunni Muslim population neighbourhood beneath it, mainly due to religious and political clashes.22 However, the Appellants' interaction with the Alawite group did not involve any religious or political concerns, but rather, it was over a personal matter involving preferential treatment based on their ethnicity at the local hospital. Therefore, the RAD finds that this one article has little probative value, as it is not reflective of the Alawites' interest or motivation to harm the Appellants, and it is given little weight to corroborate their allegations. [26] None of the articles indicate the extent of the Alawite

influence over Lebanon, any potential alliances with militant groups or local authorities, or whether they had any interest in persecuting Palestinians. The documentary evidence is also silent on any specific problems between Alawites and Palestinians in Lebanon. Based on its independent assessment, the RAD finds that the RPD was correct to impugn the Appellants' credibility for their lack of information regarding their agents of persecution. RPD erred by failing to assess supporting documents in credibility findings [27] The RAD agrees with the Appellants, and finds that the RPD did not weigh any of the supporting documents in its credibility findings. The RPD did not ask any specific questions about the documents at the hearing, nor did it provide any analysis on these documents in its decision. The Appellants further submit that it was a fatal error for the RPD to reach a conclusion on credibility based only on oral testimony without considering the totality of the evidence.23 [28] In support of their allegations, the Appellants provided a summons document from the Fatah movement to show that the Principal Appellant is presently a wanted person.24 This letter was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2019, nearly a year after he left Lebanon for the final time. The Principal Appellant's brother also wrote a support letter to corroborate his own arbitrary detention and the Appellants'

allegations.25 A medical letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2018 was also provided to corroborate the Principal Appellant's injuries from the beating in front of the hospital.26 [29] The RAD finds the brother's letter to be very vague in content.27 In the letter, the brother indicates that he received third-hand information from a friend who told him that the Principal Appellant's summons was in connection with "a summons by the XXXX Police Station under Syrian influence."28 It is unclear whether there are separate summonses from both the Fatah Movement and the police station, or whether both sets of authorities worked together to collectively issue one summons. The brother also claims that this unnamed friend happened to work with the Fatah Movement.29 The Principal Appellant repeated this same explanation at the hearing. No information is provided regarding what circumstances the brother happened to learn about the summons from this friend, or how the brother was able to acquire the summons on behalf of the Principal Appellant. [30] The summons document itself is equally uninformative.30 No information regarding why this summons was issued a year after the Principal Appellant had already left Lebanon. The summons itself does not indicate why the Principal Appellant is being summoned. Also, the sections for "number" and "subject" are left blank. The summons also does not indicate when

the Principal Appellant is expected to appear. [31] The documentary evidence also indicates that Lebanese state security operates separately from the security factions within the Palestinian refugee camps.31 Palestinian factions in the camps reportedly run their own system of justice, which functions outside of state control.32 Therefore, it is uncertain why the XXXXpolice station and the local Fatah Movement at the Appellants' camp would be cooperating in this particular situation. The unnamed friend is the only source of information confirming that the XXXX police station is under Syrian influence, and the RAD finds that this is unreliable evidence without objective basis. Also, the Appellants are not politically connected, and even if the police station is under Syrian influence, this does not explain how the Appellants would become persons of interest. The Appellants' counsel who represented them at the hearing gave oral evidence regarding how state security works with Fatah.33 However, counsel is not a witness and so this explanation cannot be given any weight. [32] The RAD finds it concerning that the documents supporting the Appellants' summons are vague and uninformative. Contrary to the brother's letter, the Lebanese authorities operate separately from the security factions at the camps. However, even if the documents were fraudulent, the RAD finds that the Appellants

have a residual profile as stateless Palestinians living in Lebanon, as discussed in the paragraphs below. Appellants have a residual profile as Stateless Palestinians in Lebanon [33] The RAD finds that the Appellants have a residual profile as Stateless Palestinians if they were to return to Lebanon. The RPD also found that Palestinians had difficulty gaining all but menial employment in Lebanon, and that they had limited housing opportunities, as well as reduced access to social services and healthcare.34 The RPD found that this was discriminatory, but not persecutory. The RPD also found that the Principal Appellant did not establish that the substandard services provided by the United Nations at the refugee camps in Lebanon would amount to persecution.35 [34] The Appellants submit that they face the risk of arbitrary detention if they return to Lebanon.36 They submit that stops at checkpoints are a fact of life, and they face extensive limitations on their mobility rights as Stateless Palestinians. They further submit that the Principal Appellant's brother was only able to live in a house outside the camp because the house is registered to his wife's name, who is a Lebanese citizen.37 There are laws prohibiting gainful employment and property ownership.38 They face threats to their life and safety in refugee camps. The camp where the Appellants are registered is in terrible

condition.39 Furthermore, women are most severely impacted as they are often made to feel unsafe.40 [35] While the RAD agrees with the Appellants regarding the dire conditions for Palestinians in Lebanon, the RAD also finds that the RPD's credibility concerns are not entirely without merit. The entire basis of their allegations regarding Lebanon stem from the Appellants being summoned by Fatah and subjected to violence and torture because the Principal Appellant complained to the receptionist at a local hospital about a Lebanese person getting priority healthcare over his mother, and this was overheard by a group of Alawites. They allegedly beat him outside the hospital for making such a demand. The Principal Appellant alleges that he continues to be a wanted man, a year after he left Lebanon. The Appellants had never previously encountered this group of Alawites in the past and do not know anything about their personal identities other than what the receptionist told them. All of the subsequent incidents of violence allegedly took place during the Appellants' XXXX-day visit to Lebanon in 2018. [36] However, even if the Appellants were dishonest in their allegations regarding the persecution they experienced in Lebanon in 2018, the RAD finds that the Appellants have a residual profile as stateless Palestinians living in Lebanon. As indicated by the Justice Harrington at the

Federal Court, "one may be a liar and a refugee both."41 The refugee claim analysis is forward-looking, and the RAD considers the possibility of persecution if the Appellants were to return to Lebanon, based on their ethnicity as stateless Palestinians. [37] The Appellants provided their refugee identity cards to show that they previously resided at a United Nations (UN) refugee camp in Lebanon, and they are identified as stateless Palestinians with no citizenship status in Lebanon.42 [38] The RAD finds that the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon is persecutory, and the documentary evidence makes this very clear. The RAD also finds that Stateless Palestinians do not simply have barriers when it comes to employment and housing. To be considered persecution the mistreatment suffered or anticipated must be serious43 and a second criterion of persecution is that the harm occurs with repetition or persistence in a systematic way.44 In order to determine whether particular mistreatment would be considered serious the RAD must determine what interest of the claimants might be harmed and to what extent the subsistence, enjoyment, expression, or exercise of that right might be affected. The RAD must consider whether the persecution alleged by the Appellants threaten their basic human rights in a fundamental way.45 [39] The RAD finds that Palestinians face threats of arbitrary arrest

and detention.46 Both state security forces and Palestinian factions subject Palestinian refugees to arbitrary arrest and detention.47 [40] The Appellants are registered to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX refugee camp, according to their Palestinian refugee cards.48 In order to leave and enter this camp, they are required to produce a permit. The documentary evidence indicates that this camp has been under strict military guard since 2007.49 Despite evidence indicating that the checkpoints have been less strict since 201250, the RAD finds on a balance of probabilities, that their mobility is still significantly limited. [41] Torture was a pervasive practice that was routinely used by armed forces and law enforcement agencies.51 Palestinian factions in refugee camps reportedly run their own systems of justice outside of state control. The majority of Palestinians reside in refugee camps, which are characterized by high health risks, including water contamination and high rates of poverty.52 Human Rights Watch described the social and economic conditions of these camps as "appalling".53 [42] Furthermore, Palestinians do not have basic social and economic or civil rights.54 Palestinians refugees are noted to receive poorer treatment than other foreign nationals.55 The right to residency and travel for Palestinians is subject to arbitrary change depending on the political context.56 The

Appellants' description of their livelihood at the refugee camps and their experiences with the military checkpoints as described in the BOCs is consistent with the documentary evidence. The RAD notes that Palestinians have been discriminated against by the Lebanese state for decades, and there are few signs that this will improve.57 [43] Given the historic nature of discrimination endured by Palestinians living in Lebanon, the limits on their basic social and economic rights, the squalid conditions of the refugee camps, and potential for arbitrary detention and arrests, the RAD finds that the potential mistreatment of the Appellants is serious and systematic. Therefore, the RAD finds that the Appellants would face a serious possibility of persecution if they were to return to Lebanon, based on their ethnicity as Stateless Palestinians. The RAD finds that the RPD erred in finding that the Appellants would only face discrimination in Lebanon as stateless Palestinians. No state protection for the Appellants in Lebanon [44] According to the United States Department of State Report for 2018, Lebanon is a parliamentary republic.58 Amongst the most significant human rights abuses were the limitations on freedom of movement for Palestinian refugees.59 The report cites that there continues to be systematic discrimination against Palestinian refugees and other minority groups living in

the country. The government officials enjoyed a measure of impunity for human rights abuses.60 [45] Despite the presence of Lebanese and United Nations security forces, Palestinian refugee camps continued to act as self-governed entities and maintained security and militia forces not under the direction of government officials. State security forces and autonomous Palestinian security factions subjected Palestinian refugees to arbitrary arrest and detention.61 Stateless Palestinians do not enjoy rights given to foreigners holding citizenship from another country, and are denied basic rights.62 [46] Based on the evidence above, the RAD finds that the Appellants have rebutted the presumption of state protection, as adequate state protection would not be forthcoming to them, on a balance of probabilities. No viable internal flight alternative in Lebanon [47] Given the systematic discrimination against stateless Palestinians is prevalent throughout the country, the RAD finds that there is not a viable internal flight alternative for the Appellants in Lebanon, as there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country. Therefore, the RAD finds that the Appellants would face a serious possibility of persecution if they were to return to Lebanon. [48] After carefully considering all of the evidence in this claim, the RAD finds that the Appellants are Convention Refugees, as they would face a serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon due to their profile as stateless Palestinians, and they are unable to return to the UAE.

CONCLUSION [49] The appeal is allowed. Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees. (signed) "M. Lee" M. Lee January 7, 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, [2016] 4 FCR 157, 2016 FCA 93, at paragraph 78. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Written Statement, at page 4. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, at pages 5-28. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, at pages 5-8. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, at pages 11-28. 7 Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 8 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, [2016] 4 FCR 230, 2016 FCA 96. 9 Thabet v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 FCR 21, 1998 CanLII 9063 (FCA). 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 9, paragraph 43. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 7, paragraphs 22-23. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 7, paragraph 25. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 39, paragraphs 37-38. 14 RPD Hearing Recording, August 28, 2019, at 1:04:12. 15 RPD Hearing Recording, August 28, 2019, at 1:11:03. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record,

RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 9, paragraph 40. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 41, paragraph 46. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 41, paragraph 48. 19 RPD Hearing Recording, August 28, 2019, at 1:29:54. 20 RPD Hearing Recording, August 28, 2019, at 1:40:22. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 6 and 7, at pages 243-349; Exhibit RPD-2, RPD Supplementary Record, at pages 1-57. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at pages 346- 348. 23 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 42, paragraph 50. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at page 208. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at page 206. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at page 204. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at page 206. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at page 206. 29 Ibid. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at page 208. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Lebanon, version March 29, 2019, item 13.2, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, February 2016. 32 Ibid. 33 RPD Hearing Recording, August 28, 2019, at 1:35:55. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 10, paragraph 47. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at page 10, paragraph 49. 36 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants'

Memorandum, at page 47, paragraph 71. 37 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 46, paragraph 65. 38 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 49, paragraph 76. 39 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 52, paragraph 83. 40 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at page 53, paragraph 85. 41 Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Gunasingam, 2008 FC 181, at paragraph 1. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at page 240. 43 Sagharichi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.). 44 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at 734. 45 Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593. 46 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.1, National Documentary Package (NDP) for Lebanon, version March 29, 2019, item 13.2, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, February 2016. 47 Ibid. 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pages 215-225. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.1, National Documentary Package (NDP) for Lebanon, version March 29, 2019, item 13.1, Response to Information Request, LBN103848.E. 15 November 2011. 50 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.1, National Documentary Package (NDP) for Lebanon, version March 29, 2019, item 13.2, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, February

2016. 51 Ibid. 52 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.1, National Documentary Package (NDP) for Lebanon, version March 29, 2019, item 13.5, Response to Information Request, LBN104692.E, 10 December 2013. 53 Ibid. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.1, National Documentary Package (NDP) for Lebanon, version March 29, 2019, item 13.1, Response to Information Request, LBN103848.E, 15 November 2011. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.1, National Documentary Package (NDP) for Lebanon, version March 29, 2019, item 13.5, Response to Information Request, LBN104692.E, 10 December 2013. 58 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.1, National Documentary Package (NDP) for Lebanon, version March 29, 2019, item 2.1, Lebanon. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States Department of State. 13 March 2019. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3.1, National Documentary Package (NDP) for Lebanon, version March 29, 2019, item 13.5, Response to Information Request, LBN104692.E, 10 December 2013. 62 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-29131 TB9-29132 / TB9-29133 / TB9-29134 TB9-29135 / TB9-29136 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 15 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français