TB7-20134

RPD File / Dossier de la SPR : TB7-20134 TB8-06996 UCI / IUC: XXXX XXXX Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of hearing January 21, 2019 Date(s) de l'audience Place of hearing Toronto, ON Lieu de l'audience Date of decision and reasons February 22, 2019 Date de la décision et des motifs Panel A. Green Tribunal Counsel for the claimant(s) Amro Hayek Conseil(s) du (de la/des) demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (principal claimant) and XXXX XXXX (female claimant), seek refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 INTRODUCTION [2] The principal claimant is a 30-year old man who was born and raised in Saudi Arabia. The female claimant is his mother. She was born in Gaza, but went to Saudi Arabia with her parents when she was approximately 12 years old. The claimants are of Palestinian descent. [3] The principal claimant studied and worked in Saudi Arabia. The principal claimant was allegedly harassed by a police officer, who referred to him as a foreigner, while living in Saudi Arabia. He further alleges that a member of the religious police harassed and threatened him. [4] On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the principal claimant travelled to the United States (U.S.), subsequently entering Canada, where he filed a refugee claim. [5] The female claimant married her husband in 1976. After marriage they had six children, including the principal claimant. The children were born and raised in Saudi Arabia. [6] After four of her children, including the principal claimant, left for Canada, the female claimant felt lonely and decided to travel to Canada. Her husband remains in Saudi Arabia. [7] On March 9, 2018, the female claimant entered Canada and filed a refugee claim. DETERMINATION [8] The panel finds that the claimants have not established that they are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The panel further finds that the claimants do not meet the definition of persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of the IRPA. ANALYSIS [9] The determinative issues are identity and credibility. Identity [10] The panel accepts that the claimants are stateless Palestinians, who resided in Saudi Arabia, prior to travelling to Canada. The panel relies on the oral testimony given by the claimants, along with copies of their travel document issued to stateless Palestinians.2 Country of Former Habitual Residence (CFHR) [11] The claimants hold both Egyptian travel documents for Palestinian refugees and Palestinian-Authority issued travel documents.3 The principal claimant testified that he has never been to Egypt nor Palestine. The female claimant testified that she visited Egypt with her husband and family, on one occasion many decades ago, spending approximately 3 weeks in the country, and that she resided in Palestine with her parents prior to migrating to Saudi Arabia. Egypt [12] A travel document is not conclusive evidence of habitual residence. The female claimant's trip to Egypt was brief in nature, and the principal claimant has never been there. Based on the evidence, Egypt is not a country of former habitual residence for the claimants. Palestine [13] The female claimant testified that she was born in Palestine (Gaza) and resided there before leaving for Saudi Arabia, when she was approximately 12 years old. She has not returned to Palestine since. According to the documentary evidence, Palestinians require Israeli-issued IDs to enter Palestine, and it is "not possible to obtain the Israeli-issued ID from abroad."4 It appears that "[o]nly Palestinians present in the territories in 1967 were listed in the population registry and assigned identity cards...so Palestinians who were absent at that time lost their right of residence."5 The female claimant was born in 1952, and left Palestine in or about 1964. She testified she was never issued a Palestinian national ID and does not have an Israeli-issued ID. [14] The panel finds that Palestine is a former habitual residence for the female claimant, but based on the available evidence, she has lost her right of residence in Palestine and cannot return there. The panel is satisfied that Palestine is not a place of former habitual residence for the principal claimant, who testified that he has never visited or resided in Palestine. Saudi Arabia [15] As stated beforehand, the principal was born in Saudi Arabia, and lived there most of his life. While studying abroad, he returned to Saudi Arabia during school breaks. The principal claimant worked in Saudi Arabia and has substantial family ties in that country. [16] In 2005, the principal claimant traveled to Jordan to pursue a Bachelor's degree, and remained there until 2011 on a student's permit. The Federal Court in Marchaud6 found that studying for several years in a third country, in the present case Jordan, is not sufficient for a CFHR. The panel finds that Jordan is not a country of former habitual residence for the claimant. [17] Based on the available evidence, the panel finds that Saudi Arabia is the sole country of former habitual residence for the principal claimant. [18] Likewise, the female claimant resided in Saudi Arabia from the time she was 12 years old, and worked in that country where she raised a family and has substantial family ties. The panel finds that Saudi Arabia is a country of former habitual residence for the female claimant. [19] Based on the above, both claims have been assessed in relation to Saudi Arabia. Credibility [20] Generally a claimant's evidence given under oath is presumed to be truthful, unless there are valid reasons to doubt its veracity. The panel has reasons to doubt the truthfulness of portions of the testimony given by both claimants, as discussed below. Further, the panel does not accept some of the inferences that the claimants have drawn from their experiences in Saudi Arabia, pertaining to the discrimination they allegedly experienced while living in that country. Allegations of discrimination amounting to persecution [21] The claimants allege that they faced discrimination amounting to persecution in Saudi Arabia. For instance, they were not entitled to Saudi nationality, nor did they have access to free services available to Saudi nationals, including public health care or public education. [22] The information before the panel is that non-citizens in Saudi Arabia are treated differently; persons born to non-national fathers have no path to citizenship and non-citizens do not have access to free services, such as public education, health care and other social services.7 Furthermore, non-citizens must secure an employment sponsor to legally remain in the country.8 [23] The panel finds that the treatment of non-citizens in Saudi Arabia, as described above, is not persecution given it is unrelated to any of the grounds set out in the definition of a Convention refugee. The claimants, like other non-citizens, did not have access to public services or the right to citizenship. However, they were not singled out because they are Palestinians. The documentary evidence makes no reference to generalised persecution of Palestinians in Saudi Arabia. In the panel's view, the government of Saudi Arabia does not owe the same duty to non-citizens as it does to citizens of that country, and in regards to the inability to acquire citizenship, the government of Saudi Arabia has the right to decide to whom it grants citizenship. [24] Furthermore, the panel finds the allegation that the principal claimant experienced discrimination, amounting to persecution, in relation to his academic pursuits is unfounded. [25] One source in the National Documentation Package (NDP) indicates that non-citizens in Saudi Arabia have access to "free education up to ... high school,"9 while another states that non-citizens who attend public schools have to pay for their elementary and high school education.10 [26] In any event, the principal claimant wrote in his BOC narrative that he attended elementary and middle schools in Saudi Arabia, and was a successful student (first in his class.)11 The female claimant likewise completed elementary and high school in Saudi Arabia.12 [27] At the hearing the principal claimant initially informed the panel that as a foreigner he was not allowed to attend public school, and it was mandatory that he attend private school. However, his mother's narrative noted that based on connections, her children were able to enroll in public school at some point. When asked about this the principal claimant acknowledged that he did attend public school for "a few years." The panel heard evidence that after high school the principal claimant went to Jordan for university paid for by his parents. The principal claimant testified that at the time there were no private universities in Saudi Arabia; that now one or two exist, but as a non-citizen, he was not entitled to a public university education in Saudi Arabia. [28] The female claimant graduated from high school in Saudi Arabia, and later studied at the XXXX XXXX XXXX(XXXX XXXX XXXX), receiving her diploma in 1973.13 [29] Based on the evidence before the panel, neither of these claimants were denied access to an education. The panel notes that the restrictions on who can attend public school in Saudi Arabia do not affect only Palestinians, but rather all foreigners in the country. Children born to non-citizen parents have access to private education, and in some instance, free public education. While the evidence indicates that there is no access to free education at the university level, non-citizens with financial ability can pay for university studies in Saudi Arabia and, as in the case of the principal claimant, have the option to attend college or university outside the country. [30] The panel accepts that the principal claimant felt compelled to travel outside the country to pursue his university studies but finds that this does not amount to persecution. The principal claimant's difficulties are unrelated to any of the five grounds set out in the Refugee Convention. [31] Furthermore, the panel finds that the claimants faced no discrimination in employment in Saudi Arabia. Both claimants testified that they worked in Saudi Arabia. [32] After completing his degree in Jordan, the principal claimant returned to Saudi Arabia, where he found employment as a XXXX XXXX XXXX. The principal claimant worked with the same company from 2011 to 2012, and with a different company from 2012 to 2013, as a XXXX XXXX XXXX. In 2013, he went to work for XXXX XXXX XXXX, where he was employed until 2014, when he joined a different company. The principal claimant was later promoted in 2015 to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and was named "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" for his XXXX XXXX. In 2017, the principal claimant got promoted to XXXX XXXX XXXX. He remained with that company until he decided to travel to Canada, where he claimed refugee status. [33] The female claimant wrote in her narrative that after completing her studies in Saudi Arabia, at the XXXX XXXX XXXX, she was unable to find employment close to home. As a result she went to work in a village located approximately 80 km from XXXX. The female claimant was able to work in that village until 1980, when she allegedly lost her job, due to labor law policies favoring employment of Saudi nationals. The panel notes that the female claimant got married in 1976, and began raising her children after that period of time. Her husband supported the family with his income after she stopped working. [34] The panel finds that the claimants face no serious possibility of persecution in Saudi Arabia in relation to employment. The evidence indicates that non-citizens can be "employed as non-citizens," provided they secure a sponsor.14 This policy applies to all non-citizens, and does not single out Palestinians. While the panel acknowledges that the latest labor law policies have likely rendered it more difficult for some workers to find employment, the panel does not find the conditions imposed by the government to regulate the job market persecutory in nature. [35] When asked whether he could return to Saudi Arabia, the principal claimant stated he could not, informing the panel that his main reasons for coming to Canada involve encounters with the religious police and a police officer, who verbally attacked him and threatened him. [36] When questioned about these events which allegedly propelled his departure from Saudi Arabia, the claimant's oral testimony differed from his written evidence. Fear of religious police [37] When asked why he feared the religious police, the principal claimant stated he was not considered "an original Muslim" by them. The principal claimant stated that they oppose his dress code and that should he style his hair in a particular way they would also oppose this and believe he is not Muslim. Further, he stated that whenever it is prayer time, he is prohibited from walking on the street, and if he is found not praying the religious police would put him in jail. [38] The principal claimant testified about an incident when he was walking in a mall during prayer time and a member of the religious police asked him why he was walking. This individual asked him for identification, called him an infidel, and accused him of not being a true Muslim, because he was walking at prayer time and wearing a necklace. The principal claimant stated that he was then taken to the office of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV). The principal claimant stated this incident occurred between 2004 and 2005. He stated that at the CPVPV, he was kept between one and two hours, that he was forced to pray, asked to remove the necklace and told to sign an undertaking not to walk during prayer time. [39] However, in his narrative the principal claimant wrote that in July 2017 he was speaking to a friend by phone when a member of the religious police (Mutawaa) approached and asked who he was speaking with. Upon noticing that the principal claimant was wearing a necklace, this individual asked him to remove it and referred to him as a woman. The Mutawaa allegedly called the principal claimant a nonbeliever, adding that he should be killed because only women wear necklaces; that by wearing the necklace, the principal claimant was disobeying God. [40] The inconsistences in the principal claimant's evidence leads the panel to question his credibility. First, the panel does not find the principal claimant's allegation that he was taken to the CPVPV office, allegedly kept between one and two hours, forced to pray, asked to remove the necklace, and told to sign an undertaking not to walk during prayer time credible. There was no mention of this in his narrative. Further, while the principal claimant testified that the incident occurred over a decade ago, the narrative indicates that it took place in XXXX 2017. [41] When asked to explain why his narrative indicates that the event occurred in XXXX 2017, whereas he testified that it occurred between 2004 and 2005, the principal claimant stated he might have mixed up the date of two incidents. The principal claimant then stated that there was an incident in XXXX or XXXX 2017, involving him wearing a necklace. [42] When asked when the incident with the police officer occurred the principal claimant stated it was in XXXX 2017. The panel asked him why he had given the 2004-2005 date. The principal claimant responded that the incident where he was not praying occurred 2004-2005, but there were two separate incidents; one where he experienced problems with a police officer and another because he was wearing a necklace, both of which occurred in 2017. [43] There was no mention in the Basis of Claim (BOC) form narrative that the principal claimant had an encounter with the religious police in 2004-2005 for not praying. When confronted he stated the focus is no longer on praying but more so on the "foreigner issue." The panel asked him directly why he did not state in the narrative that he had contact with the religious police because he was not praying. The principal claimant stated he did not think about it when he wrote his story, adding "there are hundreds of incidents happening in Saudi Arabia." [44] The panel draws a negative inference from the inconsistencies between the principal claimant's oral and written evidence. The panel finds that the principal claimant's explanation for why he gave different dates for the incident with the religious police is not credible. He did not state in the BOC narrative that he had any encounter with the religious police for not praying. [45] Furthermore, the panel does not find the incidents described by the principal claimant to be persecutory conduct by the religious police. The CPVPV, which the claimant refers to as the "religious police", monitors the public behavior of citizens and non-citizens alike, in relation to expected norms, including separation of the genders, call for prayer, and dress code.15 The principal claimant was not targeted because of his Palestinian ethnicity, or for any Convention ground. Foreigners and citizens alike are expected to follow prevailing cultural norms in Saudi Arabia. If the principal claimant was indeed approached by the religious police, asked to remove his necklace and told to sign an undertaking not to walk during prayer, the panel does not find that these were acts of persecution. Likewise, the panel finds that the principal claimant has not established that he faces a danger of torture, or a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment upon return to Saudi Arabia. The principal claimant's allegation that he would be put in jail if he is found not praying is not supported by the objective documentary evidence. [46] The documentary evidence indicates that the CPVPV is no longer empowered with the functions it once had. In April 2016, the Saudi government issued regulations severely curtailing the CPVPV's enforcement powers.16 The evidence before the panel is that CPVPV officers can no longer investigate, detain or arrest anyone.17 CPVPV officers were reportedly less visibly present and active following implementation of the new strictures.18 [47] Further, the panel notes that the alleged incident in 2004-2005, wherein the principal claimant was stopped by the religious police for walking during prayer time, occurred more than a decade ago. While the principal claimant was in Jordan for a number of years, he testified that he returned to Saudi Arabia during school holidays. He also lived in Saudi Arabia from 2011 to 2017, yet there was no evidence put forth that this incident caused him further problems. [48] When the passage of time was put to the principal claimant he responded that he considers his encounter with the police officer in XXXX 2017 to be more important. Incident with police officer on XXXX XXXX, 2017 [49] In his narrative, the principal claimant wrote that on XXXX XXXX, 2017, he was leaving his home when he noticed someone blocking his driveway. He sounded his horn. An individual appeared on the sidewalk, yelled at him and called him a "foreigner." The principal claimant alleges that this individual, who later asked for his identification, was rude. When the principal claimant asked why, the individual indicated that he was a police officer. Upon checking the principal claimant's identification, this individual again became rude and showed the principal claimant his police officer identification. The police officer allegedly said derogatory things against him and other foreigners. The principal claimant apologized and left the area. [50] The principal claimant testified that the officer was irritated with him because he sounded his horn. The officer allegedly informed the principal claimant that he was bothered by the horn and stated foreigners should be respectful when speaking to Saudi nationals. The principal claimant was not arrested, but stated that the officer insulted him. When asked what else occurred the principal claimant stated that the officer told him he did not wish to see him again and if he saw him a second time he should consider himself "done." This latter statement from the officer was not in the narrative. However, the panel notes that the principal claimant told the examining officer at the port-of-entry that the police officer threatened him in this manner. [51] The incident allegedly occurred on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The principal claimant was issued a visa for the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2017. Still, the principal claimant did not leave Saudi Arabia until XXXX XXXX, 2017, several months after the alleged incident. The panel finds this delay in departure undermines the allegation that he feared the officer might harm him. [52] There is insufficient evidence before the panel to support a finding that the police officer seeks to harm the principal claimant. The officer was obviously irritated when the principal claimant sounded his horn, and might have threatened him. However, the officer walked away from the scene once neighbors intervened on the principal claimant's behalf. Further, the panel relies on the fact that the principal claimant had no further interaction with the officer after XXXX XXXX, 2017, in spite of the fact he stayed in the country for several months after the incident. [53] The principal claimant's belief that the officer may seek to harm him has no merit. The female claimant [54] In her BOC narrative, the female claimant wrote that after four of her children left to Canada she missed them and felt lonely in XXXX, and because she was unable to cope with missing her children, this affected her health negatively. She stated further that her daughter XXXX gave birth to a child in Canada, and because she was unable to be there for her daughter or her granddaughter, this added to her sorrow. The principal claimant wrote that these events led her to start looking for a way to be with her children in Canada. As a result, she traveled to the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2018, then entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018. [55] At the hearing the female claimant's story evolved. When asked why she came to Canada she stated that it was because she faced "oppression" and "discrimination" in Saudi Arabia. [56] The female claimant testified that whenever she went on the street, she was forced to cover her head, and that this affected her because she has allergy. When asked what allergy she has the female claimant stated it was in her chest. The panel asked her how she was affected and the female claimant stated that she felt "suffocated" whenever she had to cover her face. The female claimant, who wore a hijab at the hearing, stated that in Saudi Arabia she was forbidden from wearing the hijab only; that she had to cover her entire face, by wearing the niqab. [57] The panel does not find the female claimant to be a credible witness. When asked how long she has been affected in this manner she stated that it has been almost 10 years since her allergy problems arose. However, the female claimant did not take steps to leave Saudi Arabia sooner, and when she did and ultimately filed a refugee claim, she did not mention this issue. [58] The female claimant testified that if she refuses to cover her face the religious police would take her to prison. When asked if she had ever encountered this situation she stated no. [59] The allegation that she would be taken to prison for refusal to cover her face is not objectively supported. The documentary evidence does not state that women in Saudi Arabia are forced to wear the niqab. Rather, it is often worn for cultural reasons. Typically, when in public settings women are expected to wear the hijab, the covering for the head including hair, and the abaya, a long cloak that covers street clothes. The panel relies on the information in the National Documentation Package stating that "the Kingdom's laws do not require women to wear any specific type of clothing. The only requirement instead is that women, in accordance with the Islamic sharia, should not appear in public facilities and places without a hijab... The choice of which type or form of hijab to wear is left to women, as it is a matter of religious observance that depends on the woman's doctrinal or cultural background."19 The documentary evidence likewise confirms that "cultural norms enforced by state institutions require women to wear an 'abaya' (a loose-fitting, full-length cloak) in public."20 Employers, for instance, must ensure that women in the workplace comply with this dress code, and women who do not abide by this requirement "can be fined SR 1,000 (US$267)."21 In the panel's view, having to pay the fine in the event of non-compliance is not persecutory. [60] The panel finds that the female claimant faces no serious possibility of persecution upon return to Saudi Arabia. It was noted in these reasons that as of April 2016, the CPVPV no longer has the power to investigate, detain or arrest those who violate cultural practices and CPVPV officers were less visibly present and active following implementation of the new legislation. In addition, the female claimant does not appear to have a problem wearing the hijab, the only head covering required, given that she was wearing a hijab at the refugee hearing. [61] Further, the panel notes that the female claimant did not state in her BOC narrative that having to cover her face, or any other part of her body, was a reason that she left Saudi Arabia. The panel read excerpts from the female claimant's narrative to her, and asked why she did not explain that she left Saudi Arabia because she was forced to cover her face. The female claimant responded that she did not include it in the narrative but it happened. When the question was repeated she stated that she wrote the story quickly and didn't mention everything that occurred. [62] While this may be true, the panel notes that the female claimant was represented by experienced counsel. The panel finds that if this formed the basis of the female claimant's claim it would have been included in her BOC narrative. Generally, a "person's first story is usually the most genuine, and therefore the one to be believed."22 The panel prefers to rely on the first story that the female claimant wrote in her BOC narrative, that she came to Canada to be with her children because she missed them and wanted to be there for her daughter and grand-daughter. Denial of entry not persecution [63] The claimants allege they cannot return to Saudi Arabia because their exit and re-entry visas have expired. The documentary evidence indicates that to exit and re-enter Saudi Arabia, an individual must have an "exit/re-entry visa," which is valid for six months from the date of departure.23 The panel accepts that both claimants left Saudi Arabia more than 6 months ago. [64] It is mandatory that Non-citizens in Saudi Arabia have a sponsor who must apply for a visa authorization and a residence permit (Iqama) on their behalf.24 Generally, the residence permit of the holder includes residence permits for the individuals "wife and minor children."25 [65] The female claimant testified that her husband was her sponsor in Saudi Arabia, and that he is still residing in that country, where he is employed. The panel finds that the female claimant is still able to live in Saudi Arabia legally as a dependant of her spouse. [66] The panel accepts that without a valid sponsor the principal claimant could be denied entry. However, there is insufficient evidence before the panel to support such a finding. [67] The principal claimant was a XXXX XXXX XXXX with the company "XXXX" at the time of his departure from Saudi Arabia, testifying that he worked with this company for three years, from 2014-2017. The company sponsored the claimant's residence permit, allowing him to reside in the country. When asked why he left the company the principal claimant stated it was because he "decided to come as a refugee to Canada." The principal claimant testified that before leaving Saudi Arabia he simply told his employer that he was travelling but did not give him details. The principal claimant did not give the panel a direct response when asked whether the position was left open for him, stating that the "position is not to anyone especially now due to Saudization." He added that the company can terminate the employment of a person at any time. [68] Nevertheless, the panel has considered whether any potential denial of entry would constitute an act of persecution by the government of Saudi Arabia, and finds that it would not. [69] The law in Saudi Arabia is that all non-citizens must have a sponsor who can secure a residence permit on their behalf. The requirement of having a sponsor to maintain one's residency status is unrelated to the grounds set out in the Refugee Convention. [70] The panel finds that any potential denial of entry that any of the claimants face relates to an ordinary of law of general application that applies to everyone regardless of their nationality. Treatment of undocumented migrants [71] The panel must still consider whether there are other risks that the claimants could be subjected to if removed to Saudi Arabia. The panel acknowledges reports that the authorities in Saudi Arabia have arrested, detained and deported large number of undocumented workers from the country. More recently, on March 29, 2017, the government of Saudi Arabia announced a national campaign to identify, arrest, fine, and deport migrant workers with irregular status.26 In general, migrant workers were given a 90 days grace period to regularize their status or leave the country without penalties, and it is possible to request extensions of this grace period.27 [72] However, not all irregular migrants face arrests, fines or deportation. The documentary evidence shows that the government treats persons from Arab countries who cannot return in a manner distinct from its treatment of other undocumented migrants. For instance, there is a non-deportation policy for Syrians and Yemenis, and nationals of these countries who overstayed their visas were exempt from the requirement to have sponsors to secure their right to obtain legal work and residency status,28 due to ongoing tensions in their countries. [73] The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimants would not be treated similarly to irregular migrants, facing arrest, detention, and deportation. The claimants left Saudi Arabia under different circumstances, both having valid sponsors at the time of departure as discussed above. There was no persuasive evidence before the panel that they would not have sponsors to secure their residency permits, thus enabling them to return to Saudi Arabia legally. [74] Given the facts of this case, there was no persuasive evidence before the panel that the claimants would be arrested, detained, and deported upon return to Saudi Arabia. CONCLUSION [75] Having considered all the evidence, the panel finds that the claimants have failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, or show that they face a serious possibility of persecution for a Convention ground upon return to Saudi Arabia. The panel finds that the claimants have not established on a balance of probabilities that they face a danger of torture or a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, upon return to Saudi Arabia. [76] The panel rejects both claims pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPA. (signed) "A. GREEN" A. Green FEBRUARY 22, 2019 date 1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended by the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, S.C. 2012, c.17 (the "Act" or "IRPA"). 2 Exhibit 1. 3 Ibid. 4 Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package (NDP) for the Palestinian Territory, Occupied (21 December 2018), Item 14.4, Israel and Palestine: Whether a Palestinian who has lived outside of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) for a number of years can return to reside in the OPT... ZZZ105520.E, 26 April 2016. 5 Exhibit 5, NDP, Item 3.6, Israel: Travel documents issued by the Israeli government to residents of the West Bank and Gaza; ...ISR102751.E, 17 March 2008. 6 Marchoud, Bilal, v. M.C.I, 2004 FC 1471. 7 Exhibit 4, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Saudi Arabia (30 April 2018), Item 3.1, SAU105183.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 8 Ibid. 9 Exhibit 4, NDP, Item 3.1, SAU105183.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 10 Ibid. 11 Exhibit 2, BOC Narrative. 12 Exhibit 1, Form IMM5669, page 2. 13 Ibid. 14 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 3.1, SAU105183.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 Exhibit 4, NDP, Item 2.1, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Saudi Arabia for 2017, United States Department of State, 20 April 2018. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Exhibit 4, NDP, Item 5.3, List of issues and questions in relation to the combined third and fourth periodic reports of Saudi Arabia, CEDAW/C/SAU/Q/3-4, United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 31 July 2017. 20 Ibid, Item 2.1, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Saudi Arabia for 2017, United States Department of State, 20 April 2018. 21 Ibid. 22 Navaratnam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2011 FC 856, paragraph 15. 23 Exhibit 4, NDP, Item 14.1, Exit procedures and documents required for resident foreigners... SAU105398.E, IRB, 15 January 2016. 24 Ibid, Item 3.1, SAU105183.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. See also Item 3.5, ZZZ104924.E. 25 Ibid. 26 Exhibit 4, NDP, Item 2.1, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Saudi Arabia for 2017, United States Department of State, 20 April 2018. See also Item 2.2, Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International Report 2017/2018: The State of the World's Human Rights, Amnesty International; 22 February 2018. 27 Exhibit 4, NDP, Item 2.1, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Saudi Arabia for 2017, United States Department of State, 20 April 2018. 28 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD.29.01 (July 31, 2018) Disponible en français Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD.29.01 (July 31, 2018) Disponible en français RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TB7-20134 TB8-06996