TC3-07059

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC3-07059 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision September 20, 2023 Date de la décision Panel Rouba Al-Salem Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal N/A Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant) is an 84-year-old man, of Muslim-Sunni faith, and a citizen of Syria and of Lebanon and resident of Beirut. He is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated February 7, 2023, rejecting his refugee protection claim.1 [2] The Appellant alleges that he fears returning to Syria because he would be persecuted by Syrian military authorities after having completed his mandatory military service, due to his refusal to serve an additional period of time, and to be placed in the military reserve list. In 1964, the Appellant and his wife left Syria for Lebanon where they have been residing ever since and where in 1994, he was able to acquire Lebanese citizenship (through a decree),2 together with his children, while his wife was granted a temporary residence permit (renewed for various durations).3 [3] With respect to Lebanon, the Appellant alleges that he fears returning there, because of harm that he would suffer at the hands of armed military groups in Lebanon, most of whom are Shia. In this regard, the Appellant alleged during the RPD hearing that after he left Lebanon for Canada, his son informed him that in XXXX 2022, people affiliated with armed militias came to inquire about him, and they had also contacted his father-in-law during that month to inquire about the Appellant.4 He also alleges that he fears persecution and/or discrimination by government authorities and the Lebanese public for being of Syrian origin, and the general insecurity in Lebanon, including increased robberies and theft, especially of returnees to Lebanon given the presumption that they have money.5 [4] The Appellant left Lebanon for Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2020, and filed his refugee protection claim on June 30, 2022.6 He was represented by Counsel before the RPD. The RPD decision [5] In its decision, the RPD found that the Appellant's personal identity and his identity as a citizen of both Syria and Lebanon was established. The RPD also found that his wife's personal identity and her (sole) identity as a citizen of Syria were proven.7 The RPD then identified credibility as the determinative issue in both claims.8 Afterwards, the panel decided that both the Appellant and his wife established a forward-facing risk of persecution at the hands of government authorities if they were to return to Syria. With respect to the Appellant's wife (who was the principal claimant before the RPD) given that Syria was the only country of reference for her, the RPD panel decided that she would face a serious possibility of persecution as an elderly woman fearing gender-related violence due to war and accepted her claim.9 [6] However, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim for a number of reasons. The first is that the panel found that he did not establish the credibility of his allegation, central to his claim, namely that members of any armed militia in Lebanon inquired about his whereabouts after he left Lebanon for Canada or that he is still wanted by them if he returns there. Hence, the RPD decided that there is no serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted or that on a balance of probabilities, he would face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture at the hands of armed political groups in Lebanon (section 97 harm).10 [7] Subsequently, the RPD examined the Appellant's allegations that he would face harm if he returns to Lebanon because of the general insecurity and instability in Lebanon, and due to his Syrian origins, as well as the risk of having money extorted from him (considering that he would be travelling back to Lebanon from abroad). The panel therefore proceeded to assess these allegations under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Although the RPD found that Lebanese authorities discriminated against him and his family by denying him the right to pass on his Lebanese citizenship to his wife and his children, the panel decided that this alone did not amount to persecution on a balance of probabilities, including because of Syrian origins.11 [8] Lastly, the RPD decided that, on a balance of probabilities, any risk posed to him in Lebanon as a result of the general instability of the country is not personal to him and falls under the generalized risk exception in section 97(1)(b)(ii).12 The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal [9] On appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment and conclusion. This is because he alleges on appeal that the RPD was incorrect when it accepted his wife's refugee protection claim but not his because it amounts to complete family separation. He also submits that the RPD erred when it concluded that he was not injured as there is not requirement for an injury under subsection 97 of IRPA, and that if he returns to Lebanon, Lebanese authorities may revoke his Lebanese citizenship.13 Furthermore, he alleges that the RPD acted without jurisdiction, based its decision on erroneous findings of fact and without regard to the material before it and misconstrued the definition of who constitutes a refugee. Additionally, he submits that the RPD failed to observe the principles of natural justice when it relied only on the objective country documentation in the National Documentation Package (NDP) on Lebanon and did not assess the other evidence provided by the Appellant in support of his claim concerning the risk and problems faced by Syrian citizens who flee the country.14 [10] On appeal, the Appellant also alleges that the RPD erred in its determination concerning his Lebanese citizenship or that he did not face harassment, ill-treatment and discrimination that amounts to persecution in Lebanon in the past, including from Christian Lebanese.15 Additionally, he submits that the RPD ignored during his testimony that he is a man in his eighties, who is Syrian, Sunni from a country with a long history of enmity with Lebanon. Moreover, the Appellant alleges on appeal that the RPD erred when it decided that his testimony was vague and that he was not credible regarding his claim that members of Lebanese militia forces came asking for him because of having expressed his political opinion, or that he was targeted personally.16 [11] Furthermore, he claims that the RPD ignored evidence from the NDP that supports his claim that persons of Syrian origin have their rights violated in Lebanon, or that his children will move out, leaving him to be exposed to more threat, harm, and discrimination as a Syrian.17 On appeal, the Appellant alleges that Members of Parliament in Lebanon are working to have Lebanese citizenship revoked for people who are considered 'undeserving of it', and that he is on the list of those people because of his Syrian background. Lastly, he submits on appeal that there is no state protection and no Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) for him.18 [12] The Appellant submitted new evidence and requested an oral hearing. At the time of submitting his Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant was represented by the same Counsel as before the RPD. However, at the time of writing this decision, the Appellant was self-represented. DECISION [13] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE [14] With his Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant submitted the following documents for consideration as new evidence: * A letter from the Appellant's son, dated XXXX XXXX, 2023, stating that he is planning to leave Lebanon with his family to Poland, his wife's country of citizenship, due to the unsafe conditions in Lebanon, and that his sister, the Appellant's daughter, is also planning to leave with her family to Qatar, where her husband has business. He also states that the Appellant cannot live without his wife, whose refugee claim has been approved (thereafter Exhibit A); * An article entitled "MPs Abi Nasr Dib: Government must revoke Lebanese nationality for those who don't deserve it," (date not clear and source unknown). There are two sentences under a big picture but that are not legible. The rest of the article is missing (thereafter Exhibit B); * Article by Al-Jazeera English, entitled "Lebanon's Misogynistic Citizenship law," (dated March 8, 2019) (thereafter Exhibit C). [15] According to the law,19 I can only accept evidence that (i) arose after the RPD decision; or (ii) was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or (iii) that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.20 [16] With respect to Exhibit A, while the letter is dated after the RPD rendered its decision, the Appellant has not submitted any arguments on appeal,21 as to why this letter was not reasonably available at the time of the RPD decision, or why it could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to be brought to the RPD before it rendered its decision, particularly since during the RPD hearing, the Appellant made this allegation, for the firs time, namely that his children intend on leaving Lebanon. I therefore do not admit Exhibit A into evidence. [17] With respect to Exhibit B, there is no mention in the exhibit of the article source or its date. Hence, I do not find that it meets any of the criteria under subsection 110(4) of IPRA. In other words, I am unable to determine whether it arose after the RPD decision; was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or if the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring it to the RPD before the decision, Nor, has the Appellant provided any arguments on this either. I therefore do not admit Exhibit B into evidence. [18] Concerning Exhibit C, I note that the article is dated before the RPD rendered its decision on February 7, 2023. In the absence of explanations from the Appellant that it was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. I do not find that any of the criteria under subsection 110(4) of IRPA were met. I therefore do not admit Exhibit C into evidence. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [19] As per section 110(6) of IRPA, the RAD can only hold an oral hearing if it has admitted new evidence. Given that I have not done so, I do not have the discretion to hold an oral hearing. The Appellant's request is denied. ANALYSIS [20] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.22 [21] For reasons I will explain below, I find that the RPD was correct in its decision that the Appellant did not establish with sufficient and credible evidence his allegations that there is a serious possibility that he faces a forward risk of persecution or that on a balance of probabilities, he faces harm from any members of Lebanese militias if he returns to Lebanon. In addition, I find that the RPD was correct that, even though the Appellant experienced discrimination in the past, that he did not establish that there is a serious possibility of a forward-looking risk of persecution, including by Lebanese state authorities, because he is a Sunni man of Syrian origin if he were to return to Lebanon. In this regard, I also find that there is insufficient evidence to support the Appellant's claim, made for the first time before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) (and not alleged before the RPD) that Lebanese authorities are planning to revoke the Appellant's Lebanese citizenship. Furthermore, I find that the RPD was correct in its decision that the Appellant did not establish that on a balance of probabilities, he would be personally subjected to a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment that is not faced generally by others in accordance with section 97(1)(b) of IRPA. [22] Here, I also underscore that I find no evidence to support the Appellant's allegations that the RPD acted without jurisdiction that it based its decision on erroneous findings of fact and without regard to the material before it, or that it misconstrued the definition of who constitutes a refugee. Additionally, I do not agree with the Appellant that the RPD failed to observe the principles of natural justice. [23] Moreover, I find insufficient evidence that the RPD failed to assess all of the evidence submitted by the Appellant in support of his claim, including the risk and problems faced by Syrian citizens who flee the country. It is well established in law that the Board is not required to refer to every piece of evidence and every argument put forward.23 However, not referring to evidence that is related to a crucial point or that contradicts the Board's findings on such a point, may constitute a reviewable error.24 Still, I don't find that this was the Appellant's case. [24] While the Appellant is of Syrian origin, it is important to bear in mind that the challenges he would face in Lebanon are not the same as Syrians residing in Lebanon as refugees or asylum seekers, and who have no citizenship other than their Syrian citizenship. It is with respect to those Syrians (who sought refuge in Lebanon) and the challenges that they face in Lebanon that much of the objective country documentation submitted by the Appellant addresses, and which is not his particular profile. This is because the Appellant has dual Syrian and Lebanese citizenship. As will be discussed in forthcoming sections of this decision, none of the country documentation he submitted address the challenges that he may face in terms of being a Lebanese citizen of Syrian origin.25 Lastly, I do not find evidence to support the Appellant's claim that the RPD "acted without jurisdiction for, acted beyond and refused to exercise its jurisdiction."26 The Appellant's allegation regarding persecution and/or serious harm from members of Lebanese militias if he returns to Lebanon [25] In its decision, the RPD addressed the Appellant's allegations that while he was in Canada, individuals belonging to armed Lebanese groups inquired about him in Lebanon. When the RPD asked the Appellant to describe the basis on which he is allegedly at risk in Lebanon, he testified that the danger was based on the fact that he is of Syrian origin, and that due to his Syrian dialect, whenever he speaks, the armed militias would think that he is one of the refugees who recently arrived in Lebanon.27 However, when the RPD asked him to identify the agents of harm and the reason that they would target him, the Appellant responded that he is afraid of all armed and militia groups in Lebanon, because murdering a person was of no value to them. Asked if he was ever targeted while in Lebanon by any group, he responded that he was not. Furthermore, the RPD highlighted that according to the Appellant's oral testimony, he never encountered the group before coming to Canada, as he had nothing to do with militia or armed groups, but that nevertheless, he heard that they were looking for him. Afterwards, he testified that they do not like him because he spoke out against him.28 [26] However, when the RPD subsequently inquired with the Appellant as to the content of his speech against the armed groups, he responded that he does not know what they heard from him.29 Nevertheless, the RPD underscored that when answering questions from his Counsel before the RPD, the Appellant explained that he is afraid of militias such as Hezbollah, and that he was outspoken against them for destroying the country and killing people. Asked by Counsel before the RPD to explain how the groups became aware of his opinion, the Appellant explained that he may have said something among a group of people who may have been sympathetic to the group and that such people may have relayed his opinion to the armed groups.30 [27] The RPD asked the Appellant to clarify why these allegations against the armed groups were not mentioned by him in his BoC narratives or in the joint personal statement with his wife that he submitted to that RPD before the hearing. In response, the Appellant testified that it was something he found out about after he came to Canada, and that he did not know what they heard. Moreover, the Appellant furnished letters of support from his family members, who restated that armed groups had inquired about him, and that they threatened to kidnap him because he is of Syrian origin.31 [28] The RPD found the Appellant's testimony during the hearing vague, and hence, decided that the Appellant failed to credibly establish that he made any comment against any armed group or against Hezbollah. The RPD also opined that the Appellant's explanation on how these armed groups became aware of his alleged comment was equally speculative. Additionally, the RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to mention this specific allegation in his BoC narratives and recent personal statement to the panel, given that it pertains to the core of his claim. Moreover, the RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation that he omitted to mention it because he only received the news while in Canada. This is because the letters of support which he submitted in support of this allegation, were dated XXXX XXXXand XXXX, 2022, while his personal statement to the RPD was dated December 18, 2022. According to the RPD, this establishes that he was aware of the alleged inquiry by the armed group prior to the hearing of his claim. Hence, the RPD opined that it expected for the Appellant to have updated his BoC narrative accordingly if the incident truly occurred. Furthermore, the panel underscored that the beginning of the RPD hearing, the Appellant confirmed that the information in his BoC was complete, true, and correct.32 [29] Subsequently, the RPD addressed the information in the letters of support and found that there was a contradiction between the Appellant's testimony and the information in those letters, and therefore, gave them little weight. According to the RPD, while the Appellant testified that he did not know the nature of the armed groups' inquiry about him, and that they may be searching for him in absentia because of comments he had made against them, the letters of support stated that the Appellant was threatened with kidnapping because of his Syrian origin. Hence, the RPD found that this contradiction and the omission undermined the credibility of the Appellant's allegations that he made adverse comments about armed militias in Lebanon, or that he was threatened by them.33 [30] On appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred in this finding. This is because he alleges that the RPD was incorrect when it decided that his oral testimony has been vague, and that he was not credible regarding his claim that members of Lebanese militias had come asking about him because of him having expressed his political opinion, or that he had been personally targeted. In this regard, the Appellant submits that there is no reason for him to make up this allegation, claiming that there is no way that the militant groups would like to have him remain in the country. Hence, he alleges on appeal that the RPD erred when it decided to doubt the credibility of his allegations that he fears armed militias in Lebanon or when it referred to his testimony as vague.34 [31] Additionally, the Appellant claims on appeal that these militias know that he will find out that they had inquired about him and that he will decide not to return to Lebanon (and which he underscores is what effectively happened). Moreover, the Appellant alleges that no armed group or militia in the Middle East will say who they are or what they want when they inquire about someone, and that it is only the police, looking for a suspect, that would produce a warrant and make it known why they are coming to inquiry about a specific person.35 Moreover, the Appellant pointed out on appeal that there are tens of factions and militias in Lebanon, the majority of which are Shiite, and that their supporters get rewarded for reporting an individual or family or underground group to the authorities and that it is a well known practice of the people to report anything for something.36 [32] After conducting my independent assessment of all of the evidence before me, I do not find that the RPD erred in its finding that the Appellant has not established that there is a serious possibility of persecution, or that on a balance of probabilities, he would be harmed by members of Lebanese armed militias/groups if he returns to Lebanon because of making political statements. This is because I agree with the RPD's decision to draw a negative inference from the omission in his written testimony and statement submitted to the RPD, of the allegation that members of armed militia had come to inquire about his whereabouts after he left Lebanon for Canada because he had made political statements critical of them, and which is an allegation that he first made at the RPD hearing.37In this regard, I agree with the RPD that it is a central allegation to his claim and his fear of returning to Lebanon. [33] Moreover, I find that the RPD was correct in its decision not to accept the Appellant's explanation for why this central allegation to his claim was omitted from his written testimony, namely that he only found out about it when he came to Canada. This is because the letters of support which he had submitted to the RPD before the hearing took place, allege that people from an armed political party came to inquire about the Appellant. In a joint person statement with his wife, which the Appellant submitted to the RPD prior to the hearing, he claims "[m]ost recent we came to know from our son and his father-in-law that few people from armed political parties were asking about my husband last XXXX."38 However, there is no mention that he had made any political statements critical of them. Instead, he stated in this joint statement that they are not sure why they are asking about the Appellant, and that he is not a fan of those political parties and never supported them.39 However, this is not one and the same thing as alleging that he made political statements critical of them, and hence there is insufficient evidence that he is being persecuted by these armed groups because of an imputed political opinion. [34] Even if I were to find that the RPD erred by expecting the Appellant to update his written narrative before the RPD hearing to include a reference to this allegation, I underscore that that the Appellant had testified at the beginning of the RPD hearing that his BoC was complete, true and correct, that it had been translated back to him, and that he had understood the document in full.40 [35] I also find that the RPD was correct in its decision that the Appellant's oral testimony as to why he believes members of armed militias would harm him if he returns to Lebanon, was vague, and to draw a negative inference from it with respect to the credibility of his allegations that they were inquiring about him in retribution for having expressed negative political opinions of them. Asked by the RPD whom he was afraid of, the Appellant testified that he was afraid of "all armed groups because to them murdering a person has value."41 He also testified that because he does not like militias, he would speak against them but "[w]hat they have heard coming from me against them I do not know." However, when he was asked if he feared a particular militia, he responded that he was afraid of "[e]everything militia, and that they do not identify themselves when they come looking for someone."42 Here, the Appellant alleges on appeal that no armed group in the Middle East would indicate who they are or what they want when they inquire about someone, or that their members get rewarded for reporting an individual or a family. I find this statement equally speculative and overly generalized and not supported by concrete objective country documentation submitted by the Appellant or to be found in the NDP on Lebanon. [36] I have also assessed the letter of support from the father-in-law of the Appellant's son. In it a different allegation altogether is mentioned: namely that the Appellant has been threatened by members of "political party organization," and that he "has been threatened to be kidnapped because he is of Syrian origin."43 However, the Appellant never alleged in his oral or written testimony or personal statement to the RPD that he feared getting kidnapped by those groups or that the individuals who allegedly came inquiring about him had threatened to kidnap him. Rather, he testified during the RPD hearing that he feared kidnapping by "bad people" because they consider returnees to have money.44 Similarly, the letter of support from the Appellant's daughter in Lebanon states that there is a lot of kidnapping and burglary in her country targeting people arriving from the airport. However, she makes no mention that the Appellant is at risk of being kidnapped by the armed groups because of the political opinion he voiced.45 I therefore find that the RPD was correct in giving these letters little weight in establishing the Appellant's allegations that he feared kidnapping by armed groups because of critical statements he made against them. [37] Given all of the above, I find that the RPD was correct that the Appellant did not establish that on a balance of probabilities, he is wanted by individuals belonging to any militia or by armed groups in Lebanon if he returns there, because of critical comments he made about them. The Appellant's claim that he would be persecuted in Lebanon, including by Lebanese authorities for being a Sunni Muslim if he returns to Lebanon [38] In its decision, the RPD addressed the Appellant's allegations that he fears persecution in Lebanon due to discriminatory nationality laws and because he is of Syrian origin or because he is Sunni Muslim.46 With respect to the former, the RPD decided that apart from the generalized bad treatments against a person of Syrian origin in Lebanon and the refusal of the Lebanese authorities to allow the Appellant to pass on his citizenship to his wife and his children, the Appellant had testified that he faces no personalized risk in Lebanon in the past, until he came to visit his son for the third time in Canada in XXXX 2020. Here, the RPD recalled that it has already assessed those allegations (namely that armed groups had come inquiring about him while he was in Canada for the third time) and found that the Appellant failed to establish the claim that he would face harm from any armed group.47 [39] Afterwards, the RPD found that there is little information in the NDP to establish that Syrians are routinely targeted, mistreated or have issues in Lebanon and that therefore, the Appellant has not established that he faces a serious possibility of persecution, or a risk to his life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture in Lebanon, due to him and his family members being of Syrian origin.48 The RPD also assessed the Appellant's claim that Lebanese authorities discriminated against him and his family by denying him the right to pass on his Lebanese citizenship to his wife and children. In relation to this, the RPD acknowledged that the nationality laws in Lebanon are discriminatory towards foreigners, women, and other minority groups in that they limit the passage of citizenship to children in favour of Lebanese men by birth. However, the RPD decided that although discriminatory, alone, this practice did not on a balance of probabilities, amount to persecution, vis-à-vis the Appellant.49 [40] Subsequently, the RPD considered whether the Appellant would face a risk of persecution on account of his residual profile as a Sunni Muslim. While the RPD acknowledged that the Appellant had testified that the armed groups are Shia Muslims, and Counsel before the RPD argued that due to the war between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Lebanon, the Appellant would be targeted, neither the Appellant nor his wife provided any evidence to establish the credibility of their allegation that they faced or would face any issues in Lebanon on account of their Sunni identity. Afterwards, the RPD cited a source from the NDP which explains that members of recognized religious groups do not face any official discrimination on the basis of religion, contrary to religious groups in the minority, which in particular geographic areas may face low-level societal discrimination. As a result. The RPD decided that the Appellant did not establish that he faces a serious possibility of persecution for the above, either when taken individually or cumulatively.50 [41] On appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred in these findings. This is because the Appellant alleges that Lebanese citizenship was granted to him by decree on a one-time occasion, and that since then, members of the Lebanese parliament have questioned that decree and are seeking to make it null and void because it has brought 'Palestinian and Syrian Muslims' to Lebanon.51 He also points out on appeal that the Lebanese citizenship caused him a lot of problems and that he was still barred from sponsoring his wife. Furthermore, the Appellant alleges that he faced severe ill-treatment, harassment in Lebanon in the past; and that he was subjected to threats a few times in the past because of his Syrian background,52 including at the hands of extreme residents from Christian neighbors as well as the authorities.53 Therefore, he claims that the RPD erred when it decided that they do not amount to persecution. In this regard, he submits on appeal that had the RPD member had comprehensive knowledge of the situation in Syria and Lebanon, he would not assume that the Appellant was leading a good life there.54 Also, the Appellant submits on appeal that the RPD ignored NDP-related evidence that support his claim that the human rights of individuals of Syrian origin are violated in Lebanon.55 [42] Additionally, he submits on appeal that the RPD ignored that he is a man in his eighties, who is Syrian, Sunni, and therefore, from a country that has a long history of enmity with Lebanon that the Lebanese authorities are unlikely to forget. Due to his age, he alleges that he cannot express himself in a tribunal hearing concerning 55 years of agony and depression, and that he is lucky to still be alive.56 Moreover, the Appellant claims that the RPD ignored his testimony that he was mistreated and threatened for being a Syrian Sunni living in Lebanon, and that he did mention in his written narrative that Christians harassed him when he moved to Lebanon. Hence, and given that he was personally targeted before, he has subjective fear, which he could not express as an 83-year-old man.57 [43] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant has not established that he faces a serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon, including by Lebanese authorities because he is of Syrian origin or because he is Sunni Muslim. To begin with, I agree with the RPD that the fact that the Appellant is a Lebanese citizen is a central factor to consider. While NDP-related evidence mentions that there is discrimination against Syrians in Lebanon, as I already mentioned previously, this discrimination that has been documented in the NDP as well as in the objective country documentation submitted by the Appellant to the RPD, is with respect to Syrians residing in Lebanon as refugees or as asylum seekers and not with respect to Lebanese citizens of Syrian origin or those who have dual Syrian Lebanese citizenship. Here, I underscore that this is the case with respect to the objective country information in the NDP on Lebanon that was available to the Appellant at the time of the perfection of the appeal and the most recent version of the NDP on Lebanon (i,e, there is no significant change in the objective documentary evidence).58 There is no information as to any discrimination faced by Lebanese citizens of Syrian origins or who have dual citizenship (such as the Appellant), or that this discrimination could individually or cumulatively amount to persecution. Nor has the Appellant provided any objective country documentation in this regard to support his claim that those individuals are persecuted. [44] Having said that, I disagree with the RPD that NDP-related information does not establish that Syrians are routinely targeted, mistreated or have issues in Lebanon. Syria refugees and asylum seekers routinely face discrimination in Lebanon, and there is plenty of information in the NDP on Lebanon regarding this issue. However, since the Appellant is a Lebanese citizen, there is no need for the RAD to assess the correctness of this statement by the RPD. Hence, I do not see that this error by the RPD is serious enough to undermine the overall correctness of its decision that the Appellant has not established a forward-looking risk of persecution (on a serious possibility standard) because of his Syrian origin. [45] During his oral testimony, the Appellant testified that even though he is a Lebanese national, because of his Syrian origins, he is treated like a fourth or fifth class citizen in Lebanon.59 He also claimed during the RPD hearing that when he went to Lebanon to apply for his daughter-in-law's residence, because of his Syrian dialect, they did not treat him the same way they would treat a Lebanese,60 and that he is discriminated against because of his accent. However, I find insufficient evidence submitted to the RPD or on appeal, or in the NDP on Lebanon to lead me to the conclusion that he faces a serious possibility of persecution. While the Appellant alleged on appeal that there are current efforts to revoke the Lebanese citizenship of individuals, including those like the Appellant with Syrian background, the Appellant did not establish with sufficient and credible evidence that this would be the case, whether in terms of credible and sufficient objective country evidence that efforts are underway by the Lebanese government to have these individuals' citizenship revoked, or that he personally was approached or informed by Lebanese authorities that they would be doing so. [46] Additionally, I recall that during his oral testimony, the Appellant testified he never had a problem with the Lebanese state authorities, including the police, and no reason to believe that he would have any such problems in the future. This is because during the RPD hearing, the Appellant testified that "I am not afraid of the government because I do not have any debts, I have not done anything,"61 that "I was not afraid of anybody to seek [state] protection [...],"62 and that "I would not fear like the official police,63 Here I also point out that according to his BoC and that of his wife, and the Appellant's oral testimony before the RPD, he was able to pass the Lebanese citizenship to his children.64 He also testified that he had worked in several companies in Lebanon with general contracts for XXXX and XXXX.65 Hence, contrary to the RPD, which states in its decision that the Appellant was not able to pass his Lebanese citizenship to either his wife or his children, the only discrimination that I find the Appellant to have suffered from, when it comes to Lebanese state authorities, is denying him the right to pass on his Lebanese citizenship to his wife. However, in this case, I agree with the RPD that there is insufficient evidence that this amounts, to persecution even when evaluating any discrimination that faced on a cumulative basis. [47] As for the Appellant's claim that he faced discrimination from Lebanese society at large, including residents of Christian neighborhoods, the Appellant did not elaborate before the RPD in his written testimony or in his oral testimony how this was the case in the past, even when Counsel before the RPD asked him to elaborate on the discrimination he allegedly faces in Lebanon or why he fears returning with respect to this alleged discrimination.66 Hence, I find insufficient evidence that any discrimination he may have faced from Christian neighbors amounted to persecution or that he would face a serious possibility of persecution in the future. [48] In reaching this conclusion, I have also assessed the Appellant's allegations that because of his age, he was unable to express himself in a tribunal setting (referring to the RPD) and also because of prolonged years of agony and depression. While I am cognizant that testifying is not an easy experience for refugee claimants, I find insufficient evidence that these factors, mentioned for the first time by the Appellant on appeal, have undermined his ability to testify at the RPD hearing. There is nothing in the evidence or testimony of the Appellant which leads me to believe that these factors have undermined his ability to testify coherently or in a fulsome manner. Nor has the Appellant, who was represented by able Counsel before the RPD asked for procedural accommodation or submitted any evidence that leads the RAD to find that there are psychological or physical conditions that undermined the quality of the Appellant's testimony before the RPD. Does the Appellant face a personal risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment if he returns to Lebanon? [49] In its decision, the RPD examined whether the Appellant would face a forward-facing risk of persecution or a section 97 risk in Lebanon due to his residual profile as a Sunni Muslim and found that he provided no evidence this would be the case. The RPD found that the Appellant did not credibly establish his allegations that he was personally injured or threatened in Lebanon. It also opined that the fear he alleges is a generalized risk to all persons and not one specifically personalized to him. [50] In relation to this, the RPD addressed the Appellant's allegations that he fears returning to Lebanon because of the worsening insecurity there, and because the armed groups could seek to extort money from him, considering that he travelled to Canada, as they can kill anyone for a hundred dollars. Subsequently, the RPD decided that since the fear of the general instability and conflict in Lebanon is generally not tied to a Refugee Convention ground, it assessed the allegation under subsection 97 of IRPA.67 [51] Here, the RPD assessed the information in the letter of support from the Appellant's daughter,68 in support of the Appellant's fear of extortion and insecurity in Lebanon, in which she notes that there are a lot of kidnapping and burglary and that people from abroad are being targeted by 'bad people' who consider returnees as having money. The RPD also highlighted information in another letter of support, from the Appellant's neighbor, which states that Lebanon was unsafe "for almost everyone," including because of kidnapping and robberies.69 [52] The RPD then notes that general insecurity or difficulty living in Lebanon falls under the generalized risk exception found in subsection 97(1)(b).70 Afterwards, the RPD proceeded to assess the Appellant's claim made during the RPD hearing that the insecurity in the country would prevent him from living with his daughter and his son, living in Saida and Beirut respectively, and that they are contemplating leaving Lebanon. In this regard, the RPD decided that there is no corroborative evidence to show that the Appellant's family is at risk or that they will not be able to care for the Appellant as they did in the past.71 Subsequently, the RPD concluded that there is little information in the NDP to establish that an individual with the Appellant's profile, a man with family support would face a serious possibility of persecution or a section 97 risk to his life on a balance of probabilities, nor that this has been his own personal experience.72 [53] On appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred when it concluded that the Appellant did not establish that he was personally injured or threatened in Lebanon before concluding that the risk that he may face if he returns to Lebanon is not personalized. The Appellant also submits on appeal that a refugee claimant does need to establish having been injured to prove their allegation.73 [54] While I agree with the Appellant that a refugee claimant needs not establish that they were personally injured or threatened in the past before concluding that the risk they may face is personal, prospective risk, I do not find that this error is serious enough to undermine the overall correctness of the RPD decision that the Appellant has not established that he faces a personal, prospective risk. This is because I do not find that the Appellant established that on a balance of probabilities, he faces a personal, prospective risk from the situation of insecurity in Lebanon, including the threat of kidnapping and burglary. [55] I reach this conclusion after having examined his profile as an elderly man who is a Sunni Lebanese citizen of Syrian origin. With respect to the Appellant's claim that he fears extortion because he is considered a person returning to Lebanon from abroad and therefore, perceived to have money, there is insufficient evidence submitted before the RAD that this would be the case. Here, I also note that the Appellant has travelled in the past to Canada and returned to Lebanon but has not faced threat of harm or actual harm because he is a returnee from abroad. Nor does the NDP on Lebanon (whether in the version that was available to the Appellant at the time of the perfection of the Appeal or the most recent version) contain information that supports the Appellant's allegations. I also note that the Appellant did not submit any objective country documentation to support those allegations. [56] I have also examined whether on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant faces a heightened risk if he were to return to live on his own in Lebanon, given his allegations during the RPD hearing that "[m]y daughter and my son are contemplating where to flee and I cannot live on my own, it is like a remote area, nobody can visit me, I cannot visit anybody and the transportation service are very bad." 74 [57] On one hand, I find that in deciding that the Appellant has not established that his children will not be able to care for him as they did in the past, the RPD did not demonstrate that it took into consideration the Appellant's claim that they are planning to leave the country. This is because it is not clear from the RPD decision, whether the RPD accepted as credible, the Appellant's allegation that his children will leave the country and leave him behind or not, and the implications for the RPD's assessment of the level of risk he would allegedly be facing if he were to return to Lebanon. [58] On the other hand, I do not think that this error is serious enough to undermine the overall correctness of the RPD decision. This is because I have conducted my own independent assessment and find that the Appellant has not established with sufficient evidence the credibility of his allegations that his children are leaving Lebanon in the near future. In support of my conclusion, I point out that while the Appellant made those allegations in his oral testimony, this allegation was omitted by the Appellant from his written narrative attached to his BoC. In addition, the Appellant confirmed at the beginning of the RPD hearing that the information in his Boc is complete, true and correct.75 I also find insufficient evidence on record that the alleged plans of the Appellant's children to relocate out of Lebanon are materializing shortly. This is because in their letters of support, which the Appellant had submitted to the RPD, neither the son nor the daughter mentioned that they intend to leave the country as the Appellant alleged in his oral testimony. [59] Even if this were the case, I still do not find that this would heighten any personal risk that the Appellant may face if he were to return to Lebanon. The Appellant has not alleged that he suffers from any medical (physical or psychological) ailments or that he would be incapable of living independently or is unable to access services on his own. Nor has he submitted any evidence that his children would not be able to support him, even if they were to leave the country, financially to ensure that he is provided for. Given all of the above, I do not find that the Appellant has established that it is more likely than not that he is subjected personally to a risk that is not faced generally by others in or from their home country.76 On Family separation [60] On appeal, the Appellant's claims that the RPD erred when it accepted his wife's claim, but rejected his, because it amounts to family separation.77 [61] I agree that separation of the family is often difficult for any individual. However, the Court has held in the past that there is no concept of family unity incorporated into the definition of a Convention refugee.78 Also, the separation of family members does not, on its own, amount to persecution, a danger of torture, a personal risk to life, or a risk to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.79 The Appellant's claim that he does not have a viable IFA or access to adequate state protection if he returns to Lebanon [62] In his Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant submits on appeal that there is no state protection and no IFA for him if he returns to Lebanon.80 Here, he also submits on appeal that since there is no strong army, police or state apparatus, and that even the Lebanese parliament is unable to protect itself.81 [63] Given that I agree with the RPD's findings concerning the Appellant's failure to establish with sufficient and credible evidence the allegations central to his claim, the Appellant's refugee claim fails. Hence, there is no requirement for the RAD to examine whether he has a viable IFA in Lebanon. In addition, given that I have found that the Appellant has not established with sufficient and credible evidence that he faces a prospective risk of harm if he were to return to Lebanon, there is no need for the RAD to examine whether he would have access to adequate state protection. CONCLUSION [64] I find that the Appellant has not established a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of IRPA or that on a balance of probabilities, he would be subject personally to a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment that is not faced generally by others in accordance with section 97(1)(b). [58] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Rouba Al-Salem Rouba Al-Salem September 20, 2023 Date 1 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 9 and 78. 2 RPD Record, The Appellant's Basis of Claim (BoC), Item 4. 3 RPD Record, The Appellant's BoC, Item 2(a). 4 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at pp. 25-26. Item 9, letter of support by Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX XXXX, 2022) submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. The hearing took place on January 4, 2023. 5 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at pp.25-26 and 32. 6 RPD Record, The Appellant's BoC, Items 2(e) and 11. 7 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 10-11 and 13. 8 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 15. 9 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 13, 20, 25 and 79. 10 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 53-61. 11 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 62-70. 12 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 71-76. 13 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's written affidavit submitted to the RAD. 14 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 79. 15 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at pp. 82, 84 and 87. 16 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at pp. 85-87. 17 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 88. 18 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 88. 19 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subsection 110(4). 20 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 21 Neither Section 3.2 of the Memorandum of Appeal nor any other part of the Memorandum of Appeal provides an explanation how this was the case. 22 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 23 Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC), 157 FTR 35, at paras 16-17. 24 Rahal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 319, at para 39. 25 RPD Record, Items 10-14 concerning country condition of Lebanon submitted by the Appellant to the RPD (December 21, 2022). 26 Appellant's Record, Cover letter by the Appellant's former Counsel before the RAD at para. 1 submitted to the RAD. 27 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 53-54. 28 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at pp. 23-24. 29 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 55. 30 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 56. 31 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 57. 32 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 59. 33 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 60. 34 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at pp. 85-87. 35 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 85. 36 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 86. 37 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 24. 38 RPD Record, Joint statement by the Appellant and his wife to the RPD, (dated December 18, 2022) at para. 5 submitted to the RPD. 39 RPD Record, Joint statement by the Appellant and his wife to the RPD, (dated December 18, 2022) at para. 6. 40 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 9. 41 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 24. 42 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 24. 43 RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Item 12, letter of support from the father in law of the Appellant's son (XXXX XXXX, 2022) submitted to the RPD. 44 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 26. 45 RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Item 7, letter of support from the Appellant's daughter (XXXX XXXX, 2022) submitted to the RPD. 46 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 69-77. 47 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 69. 48RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 70. 49 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 66. 50 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 71-75. 51 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Affidavit submitted to the RAD at para. 6. 52 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's affidavit to the RAD at para. 7. 53 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 82. 54 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 84. 55 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 86. 56 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at pp. 84-85. 57 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at pp. 85-87. 58 The NDP version that was available to the Appellant was of October 31, 2022, while the most recent NDP version is that of August 31, 2023. 59 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 25. 60 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 24. 61 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 25. 62 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 28. 63 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 24. 64 RPD Record, The written narrative of the Appellant and the Appellant's wife, Item 2(a) submitted to the RPD. Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 33. 65 Exhibit 4, ICAC Scheduling Ready Package, at p. 1. 66 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at pp. 25 and 32-33. 67 RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 62-63. 68 RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Item 7, letter of support from the Appellant's daughter (XXXX XXXX, 2022) submitted by the Appellant to the RPD (December 21, 2022). 69 RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Item 8, letter of support from the Appellant's neighbor (XXXX XXXX, 2022) submitted by the Appellant to the RPD (December 21, 2022). RPD decision at para. 64. 70 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 65. 71 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 67. 72 RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 86. 73 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's affidavit submitted to the RAD at para. 12, referring to RPD decision at para 76. 74 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 28. 75 Transcript of the RPD hearing (January 4, 2023) at p. 9. 76 Correa v. Canada (MCI), 2014 FC 252, at para. 68. 77 The Appellant's Affidavit submitted to the RAD at para. 11. 78 Dawlatly v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) No. IMM-3607-97. Castellanos v. Canada (Solicitor General) [1995] 2 FCR 190, 1994 CanLII 3546 (FC). 79 Eustache v. Canada 2020 FC 1140 at para. 8. 80 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 88. 81 Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at p. 85. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC3-07059 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français