MC1-07673

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC1-07673 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX aka XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision February 25, 2022 Date de la décision Panel XXXXXXXXX Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Felipe Morales 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] I allow this appeal. [2] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXaka XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a XXXX XXXXyear-old stateless Palestinian who previously habitually resided in the West Bank of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) as well as the United Arab Emirates (UAE). If he returns to the West Bank, he claims to fear physical harm from relatives and community members who view him as an apostate following his conversion to the Roman Catholic faith. He further claims that he cannot return to the UAE since being laid off from his job, as he has lost the related sponsorship required to live there. * Impugned Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Decision [3] The RPD found that the Appellant had credibly established all material elements as claimed and that a serious possibility of persecution did exist if he returned to the West Bank on account of his religious beliefs. However, it found that only the UAE should be assessed as the Appellant's country of former habitual residence because "Palestine is not recognized as a country by the Canadian authorities." The RPD considered that though the Appellant could no longer return to the UAE, he had not alleged any fear of being persecuted there and, hence, that his claim failed.1 * Grounds for Appeal [4] These RPD conclusions are contested on appeal. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in identifying only the UAE as the country against which protection should be assessed. It is argued that while Palestine is not recognized as a State, Canada does recognize the Palestinian Authority as the government of the OPT. Further, this Board in its section on "Country of Origin" information has an entry for the OPT which includes a National Documentation Package (NDP). It is submitted that there were sufficient elements in the NDP to establish the well-foundedness of the Appellant's fear.2 * Determinative Issues [5] The determinative issues in this appeal relate to the Appellant's countries of former habitual residence and his forward-looking risk of persecution in either the OPT or the UAE if he returned. BACKGROUND [6] The undisputed evidence, which was accepted by the RPD, is as follows: [7] The Appellant was born in the city of Nablus, in the West Bank to two stateless Palestinian parents who originate from the town of XXXX XXXX close to Nablus.3 He holds a travel document from the Palestinian Authority4 as well as a temporary travel document issued by Jordanian authorities5 which does not grant any right to residence or nationality in Jordan.6 7 [8] The Appellant resided in and around Nablus for most of his life, in the area currently known as Zone A - under the control of the Palestinian Authority. He then moved for work as an XXXX XXXX to the city of Dubai, in the UAE from 2008 until XXXX 2019. [9] While in the UAE the Appellant became interested in, and converted to, the Roman Catholic faith after being introduced to Christianity by Egyptian Coptic and Lebanese Roman Catholic friends who were living there. [10] In 2017, while the Appellant was in the United States (US) for five months to pursue an educational opportunity, his brother found out about his new faith and assaulted him. His brother further cut off his financial support to the Appellant, forcing him to leave the US and return to his previous job in the UAE. He thus returned to the UAE, to his previous employer but was put on notice, in XXXX 2018, that his employment would be terminated due to cuts. He left the UAE in XXXX 2019, after having obtained a US visa and made his way to Canada to seek asylum shortly thereafter. [11] He now fears returning to the OPT owing to his family members' view of him as an apostate and ensuing risk of harm in the form of physical violence from them and other community members who were made aware of this, as shown by the documentary evidence tendered.8 He further cannot return to the UAE since being laid off from his job given that he has lost the related sponsorship required to live there. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL * Refugee Appeal Division Role [12] The role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is to intervene when the RPD is wrong in law, in fact, or in fact and law. I reviewed the decision of the RPD by applying the correctness standard.9 * No New Evidence Has Been Tendered [13] The Appellant states in his memorandum that he wishes to submit the NDP relating to the OPT as new evidence with his appeal, however, I note that this specific NDP already formed part of the RPD record and is listed as Exhibit 3 in the RPD's Consolidated List of Documents.10 Further, in accordance with this Board's Policy, I have considered the current version of the NDP in assessing forward-looking risk to the Appellant.11 Thus, it need not be admitted as new evidence here. * No New Issues Have Been Raised [14] The RPD determined the claim on the issues of absence of a forward-looking risk amounting to persecution for the Appellant in the UAE and found that "Palestine" did not constitute a country of former habitual residence for the Appellant on account that it is not recognized as a sovereign State by Canadian authorities. In his Appeal Record, the Appellant argues that these RPD findings are incorrect and that the evidence is sufficient to establish that he faces a serious possibility of persecution if he returns to the OPT and that this is sufficient to make a positive determination on his claim based on the country conditions evidence. In my view, each of the determinative issues in the appeal before me has been raised in the Appeal Record. The Appeal Record was provided to the Minister, pursuant to RAD Rule 3(2). This has given the Minister sufficient notice of the live issues before me in this appeal. ANALYSIS [15] On my own assessment, I agree with the Appellant and find that the RPD incorrectly identified the Appellant's countries of former habitual residence in its reasons (see below - i.). Further, I have examined the evidence on country conditions and consider that there is more than sufficient and credible evidence on the record to support that the Appellant will face a serious possibility of persecution if he returns to the OPT, that state protection would not be forthcoming, and that no viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists. I can therefore bring finality to the claim (see below - ii.). i. The RPD Incorrectly Identified the Appellant's Countries of Former Habitual Residence [16] As the Appellant is a stateless Palestinian, he must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in at least one of his countries of former habitual residence and that he cannot return to any other to be successful in his refugee claim.12 Contrary to what the RPD asserts in paragraph 10 of its reasons, it is only necessary to demonstrate that the Appellant would establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm in one of his countries of former habitual residence and that he cannot return to the other country or countries of former habitual residence (period). It is not necessary for the Appellant to establish a risk of persecution in each of these countries.13 [17] Case-law has also established that a country of former habitual residence is considered as such if the Appellant has had a period of significant de facto residence.14 [18] The Appellant was born in the OPT and also had a work and residency permit in the UAE between 2008 and 2019 when he left. The undisputed evidence is that the Appellant has no entitlement to any nationality. [19] Thus, I find that although the RPD had correctly identified the Appellant's countries of former habitual residence as the OPT and the UAE at the hearing15 and included the relevant NDP relating to the OPT in the Consolidated List of Documents16, it later erred in finding - in its reasons - that the OPT could not be considered as such because "Palestine is not recognized as a country by the Canadian authorities."17 [20] First, from my review of the record, this finding was made in breach of procedural fairness given that the issue of the official status of Palestine was never raised as an issue at the hearing or prior to making the decision - thus preventing the Appellant or his counsel from providing submissions on this point. Instead, at the hearing, a discussion took place with counsel regarding whether the UAE was a secondary country of former habitual residence, and it was clarified by the Appellant that he would not have the possibility to return there today, given that he no longer has the required sponsorship. The RPD accepted this, then asked that counsel provide closing submissions about the risk of persecution for the Appellant in the OPT only.18 [21] Second, I agree with the arguments put forth by the Appellant regarding the fact that Canada does recognize the Palestinian Authority as the governmental entity in the West Bank and Gaza - this is publicly available information.19 The Appellant has also pointed to the fact that Canada has representation in the city of Ramallah, in the West Bank, currently headed by Ms. Robin Wettlaufer20 and that it interacts directly with the Palestinian Authority and provides aid to it.21 Further, the Appellant points to the fact that this Board itself catalogs documents regarding the Palestinian Authority, listed under Country: Palestinian Territory, Occupied.22 [22] I find these arguments persuasive and it seems to me that both the Convention and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) refer to a stateless person's country of habitual residence, not a recognized independent State as defined by international law. This is logical in the case of a stateless person who is, by definition, a person without a State. In my view, refugee status determination processes do require, as Justice Grammond has put it, "assessing the claim in the real world rather than in a hypothetical world."23 [23] This question has already been considered by the Australian Federal Court which, having considered different positions, determined that: There is authority to support the proposition in a certain context that the expression "country" can be read as meaning an area or part of the world.24 [24] And also, that: The objective of the Convention is to provide a practical humanitarian solution to the problems of refugees. It should be interpreted with this objective in mind. Individuals should not be denied the protection of the Convention by an unnecessarily narrow reading of the definition of "refugee". It is not appropriate to conclude that an applicant has no recourse under the Convention simply because his or her "country" of former habitual residence happens to be a colony or other entity that is not an independent sovereign state.25 [25] Indeed, I find the RPD's interpretation of what constitutes a country of former habitual residence incompatible with the purpose of the IRPA as set out at s. 3(2)(d): "to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."26 [26] The Chief Justice in Rosa stressed the importance of the objectives that inform the IRPA, such as granting fair consideration to those who come to Canada claiming persecution; offering a safe haven to persons who are able to demonstrate that they are a Convention refugee and establishing fair and efficient procedures that maintain the integrity of the Canadian refugee protection system while upholding Canada's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings.27 [27] In Maarouf, which the Australian Federal Court had also relied upon in the above-cited decision, the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada held that the definition of "country of former habitual residence" should not be unduly restrictive so as to pre-empt the provision of "surrogate" shelter to a stateless person who has demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on any of the grounds enumerated in subsection 2(1) of the Act.28 It noted that this is particularly so because Canada has not ratified the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons29, which renders a stateless claimant who falls outside the Convention refugee definition without recourse in Canada.30 This is still the case today. [28] The Supreme Court of Canada has also made clear that the values and principles of customary and conventional international law form part of the context in which Canadian laws are enacted and that to interpret a Canadian law in a way that conflicts with Canada's international obligations risks incursion by the courts in the executive's conduct of foreign affairs and censure under international law - especially where the provision "has been enacted with a view towards implementing international obligations".31 This was the case of the IRPA, the refugee protection aspects of which serve principally to discharge Canada's obligations under the Refugee Convention.32 [29] In fact, if one was to follow the interpretation proposed by the RPD, stateless Palestinians originating from the West Bank or Gaza at risk of persecution would not be covered by the protection of the IRPA or the Convention, as it would never be possible to assess their risk of returning to the OPT. This is despite the reality that these individuals would subsequently be returned there, to persecution - contrary to Canada's international obligations, and to the core customary principle of non-refoulement reiterated in the Refugee Convention and the IRPA. [30] The purposive approach is also the one adopted by Refugee Law and Statelessness experts Michelle Foster and Hélène Lambert, who argue in their book, International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Persons, that the factual reality is that many stateless persons are stateless precisely because they live in an area controlled by an entity that does not have state recognition and hence is unable to grant nationality. They further argue that the text of the refugee definition in relation to stateless persons, speaks not of "protection" of the "country of former habitual residence" but merely an inability or unwillingness "to return to it", suggesting that a country of former habitual residence need not have the attributes of a state. They conclude that taking into account the protective object and purpose of the Convention, the better view is that country of former habitual residence need not denote a state recognized as such in international law.33 [31] They also note examples from the French National Asylum Court having considered as a former country of habitual residence the partially recognized Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic because "the territory has the attributes of a state, such as defined borders, systems of law and a permanent identifiable community"34 as well as a decision by an Australian tribunal finding that while the OPT is not a State capable of granting nationality, the phrase country of former habitual residence is "used to denote a country which need not have this capability".35 [32] I agree. I find that the OPT fits within the ordinary meaning of the term country and that the territory has the attributes of a state, such as defined borders, systems of law and a permanent identifiable community. As mentioned previously, Canada recognizes the Palestinian Authority as the governmental entity in the West Bank and Gaza.36 Moreover, though residents are subject to the jurisdiction of separate authorities, they are subject to the Palestinian Authority law in the relevant areas, and the Basic Law serves as an interim constitution.37 [33] The purposive approach also seems to be the one adopted, even if implicitly, by the jurisprudence from this Board and the Canadian Federal Court, which is replete with example of cases where the OPT - whether the West Bank or Gaza - has been assessed as a country of reference.38 What is more, in at least two cases before the Federal Court, it was found that failing to assess Gaza/the OPT as a country of former habitual residence was an error.39 40 [34] I have noted only one case from the Federal Court where the official status of the OPT as not a sovereign nation-state was raised, but this argument did not gain traction and was certainly not raised in an attempt to preclude stateless Palestinians originating from the OPT from protection, on the contrary.41 Rather, it was argued by the applicant in that case that the OPT - especially Gaza - are non-contiguous territories in Israel that are precluded from self-governance, military protection, and international relations and, thereby, the country of reference should have been the sovereign state of Israel where Palestinians face daily persecution.42 In that case, however, the applicant originated from Gaza rather than the West Bank. In my view, this is sufficient, on its own, to distinguish the two situations given the significant difference of the realities on the ground - the Palestinian Authority having (some) authority and power to govern in the West Bank - and in particular, the areas known as Zone A - where the Appellant previously resided.43 [35] Thus, given the purpose and context of the Refugee Convention as outlined above, and the interpretation adopted by its various signatories, it is clear that the OPT can and should be assessed as a country of former habitual residence for a stateless Palestinian seeking Canada's protection. [36] Given all the above, I conclude that the RPD erred by refusing to assess the West Bank/OPT as the Appellant's primary country of former habitual residence. Accordingly, I will now assess the Appellant's situation with regard to his two countries of former habitual residence: the OPT and the UAE. ii. The Evidence on the Record is Sufficient for the RAD to Bring Finality to the Claim a) The Appellant has credibly established all material elements of his claim [37] The RPD found that the Appellant had credibly established all material elements of his claim, including his conversion and the threats of harm he received from his family members creating a well-founded fear of returning to the OPT. [38] Given the Appellant's extensive, detailed, personalized and consistent testimony regarding his growing interest in the Roman Catholic faith while residing in the UAE and his subsequent conversion and resulting threats he faced from family members, as well as his baptism certificate44 and other documentary evidence tendered to support his claims relating to the threats he faces from his family and community45, I agree. I have assessed the forward-looking risk to the Appellant if he returns to the OPT on that basis. [39] I further consider that the Appellant has established through his testimony, personal evidence, and the country evidence, his contention that he would be unable to return to the UAE today without the required sponsorship. The copy of his previous UAE residence card shows that it expired in XXXX 201946 and the country evidence confirms that re-entry to the UAE will not be possible based on the previous residency permit.47 [40] Given the above, it is not necessary for the Appellant to establish a fear of persecution in the UAE in order for his claim to be successful. I will detail below why his fear of persecution throughout the OPT is established. b) The evidence is sufficient to establish a forward-looking risk to the Appellant in the OPT [41] Having reviewed the totality of the evidence on the record, I find that there is sufficient objective and credible evidence to conclude that the Appellant would face a serious possibility of persecution based on his profile as a convert from Islam to the Roman Catholic faith who is viewed as an apostate and given the threats and physical violence, he faced from family members who oppose his conversion and the evidence tendered in support, showing that members of the XXXX community, more broadly, have declared him as a person "that deserves death".48 [42] I find that his family and other community members would have the motivation to seek and find him if he returned to the OPT today. This is because, the country evidence notes the importance of clans, stating that the clan structure in the OPT is far more consequential than the Bedouin tribes [for example in neighbouring Jordan], and has become even more important since the breakdown of the Palestinian Authority structures during the second uprising, or intifada al-Aqsa, beginning in 2000. It notes that the formal cement that ties together clan members is a mithaq al-sharaf, or code of honour, which is binding on all male members. The mithaq is often a formal written agreement, pages long, that ties together all the disparate families that constitute the hamula. They pledge not only their loyalty to each other but agree that an attack, (physical or honour-based) on one member constitutes an attack on all members of the hamula. Given that Palestinian society shares the honour-shame social system, individual members cannot easily violate this code without dishonouring themselves and their families. It is a powerful social glue, especially in the absence of a functioning state that can provide public security. Absent such a state, the code of vendetta and revenge often becomes dominant.49 c) The risk to the Appellant exists throughout the OPT [43] I further find that this risk of harm to the Appellant extends throughout the West Bank and OPT given that his fear of harm emanates from family members who would eventually become aware of his whereabouts through family contacts and thus would have the means to find him throughout the OPT. Case law is clear that family members or friends should not be expected to put their own lives in danger by denying knowledge of or misleading the agents of persecution as to the Appellant's whereabouts50; he also should not be required to hide from family members and friends in the proposed IFA.51 [44] Adding to this, country conditions evidence shows that there are severe restrictions on Palestinians' internal and external freedom of movement due to a complex system of bureaucratic, administrative and physical barriers, which include permit requirements, security checks and checkpoints.52 The Appellant cannot simply move to another part of the West Bank - which is already not a large territory. It would require returning to the West Bank and undertaking several administrative processes to access permits, prior to relocating. There is no guarantee that he would obtain said permits. [45] According to the UK Home Office, internal relocation between the West Bank and Gaza is likely to be extremely difficult and unreasonable in most cases.53 The UN Human Rights Council further highlights the longstanding restrictions on free movement between Gaza and the West Bank, which includes since 2007 a strict quota system imposed for being allowed to enter or exit Gaza, which was limited to specific categories of persons, such as individuals in need of emergency medical evacuations, medical referral patients, certain businessmen and humanitarian cases. Similarly, a Gaza-based research assistant for Human Rights Watch stated that travel into and out of Gaza is reserved for exceptional cases.54 [46] It is well established that for a viable IFA to exist, it must be a realistic, attainable option - meaning that the alternative place of safety must be realistically accessible to the Appellant. Any barriers to getting there should be reasonably surmountable. He cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or to undergo undue hardship in travelling there or in staying there.55 I find that the country evidence relating to the various restrictions and permit requirements in place shows, on a balance of probabilities, that internal relocation within the OPT is not a realistically accessible option to the Appellant. d) The protection of the Palestinian Authority is not available to the Appellant [47] As argued by the Appellant, the Palestinian Authority Basic Law, which serves as an interim constitution, establishes Islam as the official religion and states the principles of sharia shall be the main source of legislation, but provides for freedom of belief, worship, and the performance of religious rites unless they violate public order or morality.56 Country evidence also contains examples of cases where the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior refused to acknowledge the legality of a marriage contracted by a woman who had converted from Islam to the Christian faith - forcing the couple to register their children as born out of wedlock.57 [48] As mentioned previously, the country evidence shows that clan structure in the OPT has become even more important since the breakdown of the Palestinian Authority structures and that given that Palestinian society shares the honour-shame social system, the code of vendetta and revenge often becomes dominant.58 [49] In my opinion, given the importance of the clan structure throughout the OPT, the breakdown of the Palestinian Authority structures reported by country evidence - clear and convincing evidence exists that the Appellant, who has violated the basic tenets of Islam given his status as an apostate, would not be in a position to avail himself the protection of the Palestinian Authority against his family's clan and community if he returned to the OPT today. CONCLUSION [50] In sum, based on the personal evidence adduced by the Appellant and its broad consistency with the documentary evidence, I accept that the Appellant's profile as a stateless Palestinian and Roman Catholic convert, perceived as an apostate by his family and community members in the West Bank, creates a serious possibility of persecution on account of his religion and membership in a particular social group (individuals contravening social and religious mores) if he returns to the OPT today. [51] It is important to remember that the Appellant is not required to establish that this risk exists beyond a reasonable doubt or even on a balance of probabilities, but rather that there exists "more than a mere possibility"59 that he would face persecution from his family or community members anywhere in the OPT, and I find that he has established this in light of the country evidence. [52] Given all the above, I consider that the Appellant has established that he will face a serious possibility of persecution if he returns to the OPT, that adequate state protection is not available to him, and that no viable IFA exists. He has also established that he is unable to return to the UAE, given that he has lost any right to work or reside there. DECISION [53] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention Refugee. (signed) xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx February 25, 2022 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, paras. 16-35. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, pp. 15-21. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Schedule A, p. 62. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Palestinian Authority Travel Document, p. 148. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Jordanian Travel Document, p. 147. 6 Exhibit RAD-1, National Documentation Package (NDP), Jordan, 17 December 2021, tab 3.8: ?Palestine and Jordan: Passports issued to stateless Palestinians by the government of Jordan, including procedures, entitlements, differences between Jordanian passports issued to Jordanian nationals and those issued to stateless Palestinians... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 29 October 2015. ZZZ105324.E, p. 2: "'West Bankers': holders of two-year passports, not connoting citizenship (this was changed in 1996 to a five-year passport), with no national identity number. They also hold a green border crossing card. [...] a legal officer for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) stated that while Jordan declared disengagement from the West Bank in 1988, it has continued to issue Jordanian passports to West Bank Palestinians, but they are 'temporary' passports valid for five years, they do not have a national number, and they do not bestow rights of citizenship to the holder (UN 5 May 2014)" [emphasis added]. 7 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Jordan, 17 December 2021, tab 13.1: ?Jordan. DFAT Thematic Report: Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2 March 2015, p. 3: "In 1988, Jordan officially relinquished its claim to the West Bank. Palestinians living in the West Bank were stripped of their Jordanian citizenship, and effectively became stateless." 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Claimant's Evidence, Exhibit C-8, pp. 153-154. 9 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, CLOD, p. 28. 11 IRB, National Documentation Packages in Refugee Determination Proceedings, June 5, 2019, at s. 5(II): "The RPD and RAD will consider the most recent NDP(s) in support of assessing forward-looking risk". 12 Thabet v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 9063 (FCA), [1998] 4 FC 21. 13 Ibid. 14 Maarouf v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3021 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 723. 15 Transcript of RPD Hearing, September 1, 2021, p. 16 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, CLOD, p. 28. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, para. 22. 18 Transcript of RPD Hearing, September 1, 2021, p. 16. 19 Government of Canada, Canadian policy on key issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Support for the Palestinians: https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/mena-moan/israeli-palistinian_policy-politique_israelo-palestinien.aspx?lang=eng 20 Government of Canada, Representative Office of Canada to the Palestinian Authority: https://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/west_bank_gaza-cisjordanie_bande_de_gaza/index.aspx?lang=eng And also Biography - Robin Wettlaufer : https://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/west_bank_gaza-cisjordanie_bande_de_gaza/offices-bureaux/ambassador_msg_ambassadeur.aspx?lang=eng 21 Government of Canada, Minister Garneau meets with Palestinian Authority officials: https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2021/07/minister-garneau-meets-with-palestinian-authority-officials.html 22 https://sps-irb/ppr/ndp-cnd/Pages/Current%20NDPs.aspx 23 Ly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 379 (CanLII), para. 21. 24 Koe, Tjhe Kwet v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 912 (Tamberlin J) [emphasis added - available on: https://jade.io/t/home]. 25 Ibid. 26 SC 2001, c 27 | Immigration and Refugee Protection Act | CanLII 27 Rosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1234, para. 38 [emphasis added]; cited in: Molnar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 345 (CanLII), [2015] 4 FCR 679, para. 40. 28 Maarouf v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3021 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 723. 29 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, New York, 28 September 1954, Nations Unies, Treaty Series, vol. 360, p.117. 30 Maarouf v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3021 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 723. 31 B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 58 (CanLII), [2015] 3 SCR 704, para. 47. 32 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137 and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, New York, 31 January 1967, Nations Unies, Treaty Series, vol. 606, p. 267; accession of Canada to both on 4 June 1969 [Convention]. 33 Michelle Foster and Hélène Lambert, International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Persons - Chapter 4, Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 132-133. 34 France- National Asylum Court, 13 February 2012, M.D., n° 11026661. 35 1504584 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 650 (4 April 2017). 36 Government of Canada, Canadian policy on key issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Support for the Palestinians: https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/mena-moan/israeli-palistinian_policy-politique_israelo-palestinien.aspx?lang=eng 37 Exhibit RAD-2, NDP, Occupied Palestinian Territory, 17 December 2021, tab 12.1: ?Israel - West Bank and Gaza. International Religious Freedom Report for 2020. United States. Department of State. 12 May 2021, p. 4. 38 Sharawi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 74 (CanLII); Qassim v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 226 (CanLII); Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1355 (CanLII); Asali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 991 (CanLII); Elastal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 7683 (FC), <> ; X (Re), 2020 CanLII 122648 (CA IRB), ; X (Re), 2020 CanLII 101274 (CA IRB); X (Re), 2019 CanLII 120794 (CA IRB); X (Re), 2017 CanLII 148719 (CA IRB); X (Re), 2011 CanLII 94763 (CA IRB). 39 Algamal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1586 (CanLII). 40 Al-Khateeb v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 31 (CanLII). 41 Alkurd v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 298 (CanLII). 42 Ibid. 43 Transcript of RPD Hearing, September 1, 2021, p. 17. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Claimant's Evidence, Exhibit C-4, p. 132. 45 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Claimant's Evidence, Exhibit C-8, pp. 153-154. 46 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Claimant's Evidence, Exhibit C-7, pp. 150-151. 47 Exhibit RAD-3, NDP, United Arab Emirates, 3 February 2022, tab 14.3: ?United Arab Emirates: Country of Origin Information Relating to the Return and (Re)admission of Individuals Who Previously Resided in the UAE and Who Require a Visa Prior to Arrival. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 12 May 2020, p. 1: "As a rule, the residency permit gets automatically cancelled if the permit holder is absent from the UAE for more than six months. [...] Re-admission to the UAE is contingent on holding a valid passport and a valid residency permit. In situations where a permit holder left the UAE more than six months ago, and a longer absence was not pre-authorized, the residency permit will accordingly have been cancelled. In this case, re-entry will not be possible based on the previous residency permit." 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Claimant's Evidence, Exhibit C-8, pp. 153-154. 49 Exhibit RAD-2, NDP, Occupied Palestinian Territory, 17 December 2021, tab 1.10: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Occupied Palestinian Territories: Background information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation. Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. December 2018, pp. 22-23. 50 Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 93 (CanLII), para. 49. 51 A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 915 (CanLII), paras. 20-24. 52 Exhibit RAD-2, NDP, Occupied Palestinian Territory, 17 December 2021, tab 1.10: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Occupied Palestinian Territories: Background information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation. Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. December 2018, p. 8. 53 Ibid. 54 Exhibit RAD-2, NDP, Occupied Palestinian Territory, 17 December 2021, tab 14.5: ?Palestine and Israel: Movement between Gaza and the West Bank; permits to exit Gaza; legal and other impediments to a resident of Gaza relocating to live in the West Bank (2007-2009). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 29 June 2009. ZZZ103184.E, p. 3. 55 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589. 56 Exhibit RAD-2, NDP, Occupied Palestinian Territory, 17 December 2021, tab 12.1: ?Israel - West Bank and Gaza. International Religious Freedom Report for 2020. United States. Department of State. 12 May 2021, p. 4. 57 Exhibit RAD-2, NDP, Occupied Palestinian Territory, 17 December 2021, tab 5.12: ?Al-Haq submission to the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the First Periodic Review of the State of Palestine. Al-Haq. January 2020, pp. 38-39. 58 Exhibit RAD-2, NDP, Occupied Palestinian Territory, 17 December 2021, tab 1.10: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Occupied Palestinian Territories: Background information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation. Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. December 2018, pp. 22-23. 59 Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1989 CanLII 5184 (FCA), [1989] 2 FC 680; Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1995 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1995] 3 SCR 593, para. 120; Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14 (CanLII). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC1-07673 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