Date: 20061124
Docket: IMM-2093-06
Citation: 2006
FC 1429
Ottawa, Ontario, November
24, 2006
PRESENT: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
OSAMA
ABDALLA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Osama
Abdalla is a Kuwaiti-born stateless Palestinian, now thirty-five years of age.
He spent the first twenty years of his life studying in Kuwait. Since 1991, he has lived some
twelve years in the United
States of America,
except for a three-year stay in Ramallah in Palestine between 1997 and 2000. In 2004, he
sought refugee status in Canada.
[2]
Mr.
Abdalla’s refugee claim is to seek refuge in Canada based on a fear of
persecution upon his return to Palestine. His personal information
form describes the attempt in 1997 by the Palestinian political party Hamas to
recruit him as a member:
One day on the streets of
Ramalla around November or December, 1997, in the middle of the day, I was
approached by two men who identified themselves as Hamas members. They asked me
to join their group. I refused and after that I lived in perpetual fear that
Hamas would punish me for not joining their cause. I am opposed to any use of
violence to address the Palestinian issue.
[3]
Neither
his oral testimony nor his personal information form refers to any other
incidents with Hamas. In his interview with an officer of the Canada Border
Services Agency in May 2005, Mr. Abdalla mentioned that he had been recruited
“once directly and a few times through people I know.” The transcript of the
refugee hearing includes some 120 pages, with less than five complete pages
dealing with his fear of persecution from Hamas.
[4]
The
thirteen-page negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division deals with
two contradictions in the applicant’s presentation to support his refugee
claim, reviews the basis of his claim and considers in some detail certain
issues concerning his links with Jordan.
In the concluding paragraphs of the decision, the member of the Refugee
Protection Division stated:
It was brought to the
attention of the claimant that there has been a change of the government in Palestine due to the recent elections.
The claimant states that he was very much aware of that, but if he were to
return now to Palestine, he would fear HAMAS who have
been successful in recent elections.
The claimant stated in 1997 he
was approached by HAMAS members who encouraged the claimant to join their
group. He states since that date while he was still residing in Palestine he
was asked a couple of other times by individuals to consider joining the HAMAS
and he always refused stating that he was opposed to their violent tactics.
I have no reason to accept the
claimant having a well-founded fear of being forcibly recruited by
individuals connected to the HAMAS if he returned to Palestine. This group won the most recent election
and I am not persuaded that they would be currently forcibly recruiting
individuals such as this claimant to their organization.
[emphasis added]
[5]
The applicant’s
principal challenge against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division is
that its reasons were inadequate. Counsel relied on the leading cases which
enunciate the basic principle that reasons that are well-articulated will
foster better decision-making and will provide the parties with the assurance
that their representations have been considered: Via Rail Canada Inc. v. Lemonde,
[2000] F.C.J. No. 1685 (Q.L.) (C.A.) at paras. 17, 18 and 21; and
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) v. Ryjkov,
2005 FC 1540 at paras. 19 and 22.
[6]
In my
view, the tribunal’s reasons in the particular circumstances of this case are
adequate. The applicant’s evidence concerning the basis of his fear from the
Hamas was brief and thin. The reasons for decision cannot be read without
regard to the context of the hearing, a review of the transcript and a
consideration of the decision in its entirety. It was open to the Refugee
Protection Division, on the basis of the limited evidence presented by the
claimant, to conclude that in the context of early 2006, a short time after the
Palestinian elections in January 2006, that Hamas would not be forcibly
recruiting an individual such as Mr. Abdalla to its political organization.
[7]
It might
have been salutary for the Refugee Protection Division to note that the applicant
had encountered no further incidents with Hamas during his three-year stay in Palestine after the initial recruitment
in 1997 and that he failed to make a refugee claim during his years in the U.S.A. However, its failure to do so
does not constitute a reviewable error. In short, the reasons are adequate in
the context of the evidence presented in this case.
[8]
Accordingly,
this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested
the certification of a serious question.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application for judicial
review is dismissed.
“Allan
Lutfy”
Email this Content