VB8-00081

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 File / Dossier de la SAR : VB8-00081 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Vancouver, BC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision October 3, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Paula Faber Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Razgar Hasan Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX (appellant) is a citizen of Lebanon, he is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), rendered orally on November 23, 2017, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. He is seeking to admit new evidence and is not making a request for an oral hearing. DETERMINATION [2] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention1 refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Act).2 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF APPEAL [3] The appellant has alleged that he grew up in poverty in Lebanon and that he moved to Saudi Arabia in 1998, for a better life. [4] He married a Saudi woman in 2008 and was sponsored by her family. He describes having a difficult marriage, and to being treated as inferior by his wife's family. His son, XXXX, was born in 2012. [5] The appellant returned to Lebanon on XXXX XXXX, 2016, and while there, he ignored a demand made by three young men, for a donation to the Resistance Brigades. [6] The appellant left Lebanon on XXXX XXXX, 2016, after finding a threatening letter on his car. He was told by his family that the police would not likely help him because he is from a Sunni family, it was known that he had lived in Saudi Arabia and that he was against the Shiite militias. He travelled first to France and then to Canada. His wife and son made refugee claims which were accepted. The appellant did not make a refugee claim with his wife and son. He left his wife on XXXX XXXX, 2016, in Toronto, because of matrimonial problems. [7] The appellant returned to Canada after he was denied entry to Saudi Arabia on March 4, 2017. [8] He made a claim for refugee protection on August 23, 2017. He fears that his life will be at risk if he is to return to Lebanon because of his Saudi Arabia connections and because he is against the Shiite militias. [9] His hearing before the RPD took place on November 23, 2017. The RPD determined that the appellant was not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection. THE RPD DECISION [10] The RPD found that the appellant has a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Beirut, in the sections of the city that are not under Hezbollah control. THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS [11] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in its conclusion that there is an IFA available to the appellant in Beirut and that the RPD erred in its assessment of the country conditions documents for Lebanon. NEW EVIDENCE [12] The appellant tenders two RPD decisions as new evidence. One of these decisions, is dated June 2, 2015, the other is dated January 28, 2013.3 [13] According to section 110(4) of the Act, the appellant must establish that the evidence arose after the rejection of their claim or that it was not reasonably available. Alternatively, the appellant must establish that he could not have reasonably been expected to have presented the evidence at the time of the rejection. [14] I do not find that these two RPD decisions are admissible as "new" evidence. RPD decisions as well as case law generally are not considered as evidence before this tribunal. The argument or relevant information that the appellant believes is contained in these two decisions could have been made during submissions before the RPD. [15] I also find that pursuant to section 110(4) these two decisions, dated 2013 and 2015, did not arise after the rejection of the appellant's claim. [16] Finally, the RAD will not admit these decisions as new evidence as the RAD has not been provided with proof of consent for the disclosure of personal information from the subjects of these two RPD decisions. ROLE OF THE RAD [17] With respect to assessing questions of fact and mixed fact and law, I have applied the standard of correctness as per Huruglica.4 In assessing issues involving credibility of oral testimony where the RPD had a meaningful advantage, I will apply the RAD's modified standard of reasonableness.5 ANALYSIS Determinative issue [18] The determinative issue in this appeal is Internal Flight Alternative (IFA). I have completed an independent assessment of the record which included listening to the recording of the oral hearing, and have considered the appellant's arguments. I agree with the RPD findings and decision for the same reasons as those provided by the RPD. [19] The appellant was notified that IFA was an issue at the beginning of the hearing before the RPD. [20] Specifically, the RPD identified a Sunni neighbourhood in a non-Hezbollah controlled neighbourhood in Beirut. Identity and credibility [21] The RPD was satisfied as to the appellant's identity as a citizen of Lebanon through his testimony, his passport and other personal documents. [22] The RPD also accepted the appellant's allegation of having received a demand for money from three young men while visiting Lebanon in XXXX 2016, however, the RPD did not find the appellant to be credible with respect to some of his responses regarding the viability of the identified IFA. Appellant's profile [23] It is argued that the RPD ignored the profile of the appellant and underestimated the agent of persecution. With respect to the appellant's profile, he argues that he was targeted by members of the Resistance Brigades because he is a Sunni Muslim who is seen as rich because he is married to a Saudi woman and resides in Saudi Arabia. [24] Having conducted an independent assessment of the evidence, I do not find that the RPD has committed an error in this regard. In its decision, I find that the RPD's decision demonstrates a clear understanding of the profile of the appellant, and states that the RPD is conducting its IFA analysis and is considering the appellant's safety in Beirut based on the specific profile noted above. [25] The RPD found that the appellant's political opinion as being against the Shiite dominated Hezbollah was not significantly different than the majority of other Sunnis in Lebanon. This was consented to by the appellant in testimony before the RPD. I concur with the RPDs finding, and I do not find that the appellant has established that he has a political profile as being an anti-Hezbollah activist or even as being a particularly outspoken person. A Response to Information Request (RIR) in the National Documentation Package (NDP) states that, "within Lebanon, the Institute for War & Peace Reporting suggests, support for Hezbollah is polarized, since one usually hears either high praise or total contempt for Hezbollah". The RIR describes Hezbollah's support as mainly found among the Shiite community in Lebanon.6 The appellant agreed with the RPD that Sunni Muslims in Lebanon are more typically aligned with Saudi Arabian perspectives. [26] With respect to the appellant's connection to Saudi Arabia through his residency there and marriage to a Saudi citizen, this was considered by the RPD, and it was found that if his personal circumstances are well-known to members of the Resistance Brigades or other agents of the Hezbollah, then it should also be known that he no longer resides in Saudi Arabia and is no longer married to a Saudi woman. I agree with the RPD's finding that the appellant no longer has the same connection to Saudi Arabia, and his vague statement about his Saudi residency and marriage being well-known, has not been supported by the evidence and was no longer valid at the time of the RPD hearing. Internal flight alternative [1] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of Beirut as a viable IFA because the country conditions of Lebanon were not understood. [2] The appellant goes on to describe the small size of the country along with the power and scope of the Hezbollah and the Resistance Brigades. Agent of persecution [3] The RPD found that the individuals who demanded money from the appellant in Marjayoun in XXXX 2016, and the militia with whom they claim affiliation, would not have an interest in him if he is to return to Lebanon and relocate to a non-Hezbollah area of Beirut. [4] In his BOC the appellant writes that he refused to pay the extortion because he did not take it seriously and thought the group of three who had approached him were unemployed young men searching for easy money. He also did not file a report with the police following the incident. [5] The RPD found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the extortion attempt in XXXX 2016, followed by a note left on the appellant's car three days later, went beyond a one-time attempt to extort money. Given all the evidence before me, I concur with the RPD's finding. Country conditions [6] In its decision, the RPD reviewed the objective documents disclosed by the appellant as well as the documents contained within the NDP for Lebanon.7 [7] The appellant has argued that the Resistance Brigades do the dirty work of Hezbollah, they are everywhere and they are protected. The RPD acknowledged that there are areas within Beirut that are controlled by the Hezbollah, but there are other areas that are not, and there was no evidence before the RPD that the Resistance Brigades have any presence in Beirut. [8] The appellant argued that he received no information from the RPD with respect to the Resistance Brigades, because the search of publicly available sources conducted by the Immigration and Refugee Board's Research Directorate had been conducted under the wrong country-Jordan instead of Lebanon.8 [9] While it is true that no publicly available information about the Resistance Brigades was found for Jordan, I do not find that the RPD has committed a determinative error for failing to make a similar request for information about this group in Lebanon. The onus is on the appellant to establish his refugee claim. In this case, the appellant found and disclosed several media articles related to the Resistance Brigades. These documents were referenced by the RPD in its decision along with other documents contained within the NDP. [10] The RPD found that the Resistance Brigades do not appear to be a wide ranging group based on the country information. There appears to be little to no information about this group within the NDP. The documents disclosed by the appellant make reference to some attacks by the Resistance Brigades in several regions in 2015, however, the documents also describe how the focus of the group appears to be in the far south, in Sidon, which encompasses the area of Marjayoun, which is where the appellant was threatened. There is also information regarding the Resistance Brigades having an affiliation with the Hezbollah, and being comprised mainly of Sunni supporters from Sidon, however, there is also information about their ranks being purged by the Hezbollah.9 [11] Having reviewed both the oral hearing and the objective evidence before the RPD, I do not find that the RPD has committed an error in its understanding of the country condition documents and the nature and activities of the agent of persecution. I find that the documents within the March 31, 2017, NDP, support the RPD's decision and understanding about the country conditions in Lebanon in relation to the agent of persecution. [12] While there are many references within the NDP, including the International Religious Freedom Report, regarding the Shiite militia Hezbollah exercising authority over large parts of the country and harassing Sunnis they perceived to be a threat, this same report also describes how a larger percentage of the Muslim population in the country is Sunni (28%), rather than Shiite (20%).10 [13] There are also several documents within the NDP which describe areas of the country where there is a Sunni majority,11 as well as areas of the country where the Hezbollah operate. A RIR states that the zones under Hezbollah control are "mainly in the southern suburbs of Beirut, and large parts of South Lebanon and the Bekka region." Other references corroborate that Hezbollah's base is in Shiite-dominated areas.12 [14] This same RIR quotes an expert who offers his assessment that, although the Hezbollah is very powerful, they generally do not threaten or interfere with people on an individual basis, unless that person is a security threat or has done something to one of their members. [15] In its decision, the RPD accepted the appellant's allegation of having been approached by three young men claiming to be with the Resistance Brigades, however, the RPD determined that this was a one-time extortion demand and it did not result in the appellant being seen as a security threat or having caused harm to Resistance Brigade members. [16] Having conducted my own independent assessment of the evidence, I find that the RPD has not erred in finding, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA. Objectively reasonable [17] The RPD concluded that an IFA to a non-Hezbollah area of Beirut was reasonable in all the circumstances. [18] The appellant has agreed that he would have no particular issues with language, employment or housing in Beirut. [19] The appellant has a university level education, and has outlined a detailed employment history. [20] He has demonstrated a level of resourcefulness, having moved or travelled to several different countries. [21] The appellant testified that he lived in Beirut with his family during the Israeli occupation, and that his parents did not return to the village of Marjayoun until 2000. At that time, the appellant was already living in Saudi Arabia. [22] He also testified that his brother and sister were able to relocate from Marjayoun to Beirut, although he did not know about their current circumstances because he no longer talks to them because of a family dispute over money. Another married sister also lives in Beirut, and there was no indication presented that she has had any problems living there. [23] I concur with the RPD finding that it is not unreasonable for the appellant to live in Beirut. CONCLUSION [24] Since having a viable IFA is fatal to claims made under both sections 96 and 97(1) of the Act, I find that the appellant's claim fails on both grounds. [25] For all these reasons, I find that there is no serious possiblity of persecution for the appellant in Beirut and no risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment of punishment or danger of torture. [26] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. (signed) "Paula Faber" Paula Faber October 3, 2018 Date 1 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 3 Exhibit 2, Appellant's Record (AR), Refugee Protection Division (RPD) File no. MB5-00593 at pp. 104-111, and TB1-10487 at pp. 112-120. 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 5 As per X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 6 Exhibit 3, RPD Record, National Documentation Package (NDP), Lebanon, March 31, 2017, Item 4.2 Response to Information Request, LBN103846.E Hezbollah, including areas of operation, political involvement, military activity, recruitment practices, mistreatment of citizens and state protection, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, November 16, 2011. 7 Exhibit 3, RPD Record, NDP for Lebanon, March 31, 2017. 8 Exhibit 2, AR, Immigration and Refugee Board Memoradum from Research Directorate, p. 101. 9 Exhibit 2, AR, Albawaba News Article, Hezbollah reactivating controversial Resistance Brigades, dated April 4, 2014, pp. 83-84. 10 Exhibit 3, RPD Record, National Documentation Package (NDP), Lebanon, March 31, 2017, Item 12.1 Lebanon. International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. United States. Department of State. August 10, 2016. 11 Exhibit 3, RPD Record, National Documentation Package (NDP), Lebanon, March 31, 2017, Item 1.4 Distribution of religious groups across Lebanon, Landscan; The Washington Post, October 30, 2012; and, Item 1.9 Carte: répartition des confessions religieuses au Liban sur la base des listes électorales de 2000, Les clés du Moyen-Orient, October 16, 2013. 12 Exhibit 3, RPD Record, NDP, Lebanon, March 31, 2017, Item 4.2 Response to Information Request, LBN103846.E Hezbollah, including areas of operation, political involvement, military activity, recruitment practices, mistreatment of citizens and state protection, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, November 16, 2011. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB8-00081 RAD.25.02 (August 08, 2018) Disponible en français