VB9-09748

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-09748 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 Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 11, 2021 Date de la décision Panel R. Seyan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Thaer Abuelhaija 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 [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the appellant) argues that the Refugee Protection Division (the RPD) made a mistake when it denied his claim for refugee protection. [2] He is Palestinian and a citizen of Jordan. He alleges he cannot return to Hebron because Hamas wished to recruit him against his wishes. Were he to return to Jordan, the tribe of his former girlfriend will kill him for the dishonour he has brought upon their family. Determination [3] The appeal is allowed. [4] I refer the matter back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. [5] I do not have evidence to reject the claim. Nor do I sufficient evidence to accept the claim. Allegations [6] The appellant lived in Hebron. While at school, Hamas attempted to recruit him. He refused. [7] In 2016, he returned to Hebron after he completed university in Egypt. Then he went to the United States of America (USA) to study English. In 2017, he visited Hebron and was confronted by a former teacher about his refusal to join Hamas. The teacher gave the appellant a few days to think things over. The appellant went to stay with his brother and then returned to the USA, where he claimed asylum. In 2018, his claim was rejected. [8] In XXXX 2018, the appellant traveled to Canada and made a refugee claim. [9] In August 2019, a friend contacted him to tell him his life was in danger. [10] While in Egypt, the appellant had a relationship with XXXX, who is from the Bani Hassan tribe. Their relationship eventually broke down and they lost contact. XXXX is now married. Her clan knows that she was not a virgin on her wedding night and have threatened to kill him. Her clan have contacted his father in Hebron for his surrender. [11] The appellant fears return to Hebron or the West Bank because of Hamas. He fears return to Jordan because of the Bani Hassan tribe. The role of the RAD [12] I am required to examine the record independently and determine if the RPD arrived at the correct decision.1 [13] The appellant is not tendering any new evidence. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to convene an oral hearing. The RPD decision [14] The RPD found the appellant to be a credible witness. [15] The RPD rejected the claim against Jordan, finding that there was no objective evidence to establish that the Bani Hassan tribe committed honour crimes against men. The RPD was correct to find there is no nexus to s. 96 [16] The RPD found that the appellant had no nexus to a Convention ground. The Bani Hassan seek to kill him not because he is Palestinian but because of his relationship with XXXX XXXX [17] The appellant argues that this is in error. He argues that his marriage proposal to XXXX was rejected because of his nationality and that he is the member of a particular social group. [18] I agree with the RPD that the appellant does not have a nexus to particular social group or any other ground. Nationality [19] The RPD was correct to find that the appellant does not face a serious of persecution based on the appellant's nationality. [20] The appellant alleges the Bani Hassan tribe are targeting him because he is Palestinian. The evidence establishes otherwise. It is the appellant's relationship with XXXX that caused him to come to the attention of the tribe and not the fact that he is Palestinian. [21] There is no evidence that the Bani Hassan tribe persecutes Palestinians. The appellant points to the evidence he submitted to the RPD, an article in The Jordan Times dated September 2019 entitled "Bani Hassan tribe rallies against 'settlement projects'". 2 [22] This single article is not evidence of anti-Palestinian stance by the Bani Hassan tribe. The article describes how the head of the organization committee for the first national Bani Hassan tribe pledged support for the King of Jordan and his efforts in calling for an independent homeland for Palestinians. All tribal, social, and political groups must be included to enhance the cohesion of the nation. The head also stated that Jordan's assistance to those fleeing to the country have posed a grave threat to Jordan's identity. [23] I cannot conclude from a single article that the Bani Hassan is anti-Palestinian simply because it supports an independent homeland. The appellant's evidence does not support his assertion that the Bani Hassan tribe are anti-Palestinian. [24] His evidence is further undermined by the evidence in the National Documentation Package, which does not establish persecution against Palestinians based on their nationality. [25] Jordan is hosting 2.2 million Palestinian refugees and more than 600,000 Syrian refugees in addition to other groups. 3 Most Jordan's citizens are of Palestinian origin, who dominate the private sector.4 There is little evidence of official discrimination against Palestinians.5 [26] The RPD was correct to find that there is no nexus with respect to his nationality. Particular social group [27] The appellant argues that he is a part of particular social group as a man who has had intimate relations outside of wedlock. [28] Three categories of particular social group emerge from Federal Court tests: (i) those defined by an innate or unchangeable characteristic; (ii) groups whose members voluntarily associate for reasons fundamental to their human dignity; and (iii) groups associate by a former voluntary status, unalterable due to historical permanence. [29] The appellant does not have a nexus to particular social group. The harm that the appellant fears is not based on his gender. Men who have had relations outside marriage do not exhibit an innate or unchangeable characteristic. They do not associate voluntarily for reasons fundamental to their human dignity. Finally, there is no association by former voluntary status, unalterable due historical permanence. The latter two groups usually refer to formal associations. [30] The appellant has failed to establish that he has membership in a particular social group. The RPD's analysis under section 97 is incomplete [31] I find that the appellant is a victim of a vendetta. XXXX clan have a personal score with him that they wish to settle. [32] The RPD accepted the appellant as credible. Therefore, the threat of the agents of persecution is also credible. [33] There may be no evidence of the Bani Hassan tribe targeting men for honour crimes because I do not find this to be an honour crime but a vendetta. [34] The appellant fears the Bani Hassan tribe. He has provided one article about them in support of his claim. He argues that this article in The Jordan Times, which reports that the tribe rallied against 'settlement projects'. The tribe supports the king in seeking an alternative homeland for Palestinians, as Jordan has experienced demographic change and its national identity is threatened.6 [35] Other than that, the appellant describes the tribe as powerful and influential. The RPD did not ask him to provide examples of this power and influence. Nor did the appellant volunteer any such information. [36] Furthermore, I know nothing about the family of XXXX. I have no evidence on state protection or the viability of an internal flight alternative. [37] The documentary evidence establishes that tribal law is strong in Jordan.7 But this does not establish that the appellant is a person in need of protection with respect to his claim against Jordan. I have insufficient information to find the appellant is a Convention refugee with respect to his claim against Palestine [38] The RPD asked no questions with respect to the appellant's claim in Palestine. The appellant hails from the West Bank, which under the control of the Palestinian Authority and further divided into areas. [39] This may impact the appellant's claim and his ability to seek state protection. The RPD did not canvass the viability of an internal flight alternative within Palestine. While there may not be a viable IFA, the appellant was not asked any questions. [40] Furthermore, I know nothing of the power, influence, and position of the teacher at the appellant's old school, who attempted to recruit the appellant. [41] While there may be nexus in the claim against Palestine, there are gaps in the evidence that do not allow me to substitute a positive determination. Conclusion [42] The appeal is allowed. I refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. (signed) "R. Seyan" R. Seyan 11 February 2021 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, [2016] 4 FCR 157, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 124. 3 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Jordan (18 December 2020), Item 1.3. 4 NDP for Jordan (18 December 2020), Item, 1.7; 2.1. 5 NDP for Jordan (18 December 2020), Item 13.1. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 123. 7 NDP for Jordan (18 December 2020), Item 5.10; 9.1. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-09748 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français