IMM-1339-96
BETWEEN:
KARIM BENAISSA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
JEROME A.C.J.:
This application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("CRDD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated March 29, 1996, came on for hearing at Toronto, Ontario, on February 25, 1997. At the conclusion of argument, I took the matter under reserve and indicated that these written reasons would follow.
The applicant, who is a citizen of Algeria and of Berber nationality, arrived in Canada in March of 1995. Mr. Benaissa claimed Convention refugee status on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of political opinion and membership in a particular social group. A hearing was held before the Refugee Board on January 23, 1996.
By decision dated March 29, 1996, the tribunal held that the applicant was not a Convention refugee. The applicant now seeks to have that decision set aside on the grounds that the Board erred in law and in fact in making its decision and based its decision on erroneous findings of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner.
The Board set out its factual findings in its reasons. The Board stated that the applicant had, since his youth, identified with the cultural aspirations of the Berbers and had been involved in political activities related to this cause. Upon his neighbourhood becoming increasingly Islamic, the applicant's childhood friends and acquaintances criticized his liberal, non-religious lifestyle. The Board noted that two of the applicant's brothers were in the police force and that this led to the applicant being called an informer by his Islamic neighbours. In addition, the applicant's two brothers left Algeria in 1994 on account of the danger that they, as police officers, faced from Islamic militants.
The Board detailed the events which the applicant claimed led him to leave Algeria. In September of 1994, he received a letter, written in Arabic, from the "Groupe islamiste armé" (GIA), a Muslim fundamentalist terrorist organization. The letter condemned him for being an enemy of God and Islam. In his oral testimony, the applicant added that it said that he would be their next victim because of this. The tribunal then stated at page 3-4 of its reasons:
| |
Le demandeur a justifié ces explications ultérieures en disant que le français n'était pas sa langue maternelle et qu'il ne s'était pas exprimé correctement dans son FRP. Or, le tribunal remarque que le demandeur n'a eu aucune difficulté à témoigner en français et qu'il n'a jamais demandé les services d'un interprète algérien. Le tribunal estime que le demandeur a exagéré le contenu de la lettre pour avancer sa revendication. |
|
After receiving this threat, the applicant was advised by his brother not to socialize outside of their home, and to be cautious about taking passengers in his taxi unless they were known to him. The applicant heeded this advice, but continued to live at home and to park his taxi outside of the family residence.
In December of 1994, a second letter was received from the GIA. In his personal information form, the applicant stated that the letter told him to get his brothers to surrender to the militants. In his oral testimony, the applicant added that the letter also referred to him as a devil and warned his father to turn in his brothers. At page 4-5 of its reasons, the tribunal stated:
| |
Le tribunal constate que la deuxième version de la lettre, telle que décrite par le demandeur, ne semble pas véridique. Par ailleurs, le tribunal estime qu'étant donné les différences des deux messages présentés par le demandeur, ce dernier a élaboré les contenus de la lettre juste pour exagérer l'importance que lui accordaient les Islamistes. Vu le témoignage du demandeur au sujet de cette deuxième lettre dans son FRP, et vu son témoignage au sujet de la visite de deux Islamistes, décrite ci-après, le tribunal n'est pas persuadé que la prétendue lettre concernait le demandeur. Étant donné la situation actuelle en Algérie et vu que les actions des Islamistes militants visent les membres de la force de sécurité, il est plausible que les frères policiers du demandeur aient été la cible de menaces d'Islamistes militants. Les frères policiers du demandeur ont d'ailleurs pris certaines précautions. Ils ne vivaient plus dans la maison familiale et restaient au poste de police mis exprès à leur disposition pour assurer leur sécurité. À cet égard, le tribunal remarque aussi que Mohamed, le frère du demandeur, a tenu compte des menaces proférées contre lui, car il a quitté le pays peu de temps après avoir reçu la lette, l'autre frère policier, Abdel, ayant déjà quitté l'Algérie en mars 1994. Rien n'indique que le demandeur ait, comme ses frères, réagi immédiatement aux menaces qu'il prétend auraient été proférées à son égard. Il n'a alors quitté ni son domicile, ni le pays, comme ses frères l'avaient fait. Le demandeur a quitté l'Algérie en février 1995. |
|
After his brother Mohamed left Algeria in December of 1994, two Muslims came to the family home to find out where the applicant's brother was. In his personal information form, the applicant stated that the individuals insulted his family, menaced them with their guns, and left stating that they would return. In oral testimony, the applicant stated that he was identified by the Muslims and told that he would be killed. The tribunal stated that it gave little credibility to the applicant's oral testimony on this point.
The applicant decided to leave Algeria in January of 1995. He sold his taxi to a friend in order to raise money to finance his departure. Three days after he sold the taxi, it was blown up and his friend was killed. The police treated the explosion as an accident. The applicant believed that Islamic fundamentalists were the source of the explosion and that he was the intended target.
The Board examined whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion and his social group. The Board made the following findings at pages 8-11:
| |
À cause des conclusions que le tribunal a tirées au sujet des deux lettres et de la visite que le demandeur a décrite, le tribunal constate que les difficultés que le demandeur a connues étaient de nature locale, causées par d'anciens amis et connaissances islamistes qui voyaient d'un oeil critique son style de vie laïque. |
|
| |
Le tribunal n'a pas suffisamment de preuves pour conclure que l'accident de voiture était plus qu'un accident, ni qu'il était dirigé contre le demandeur. ... De plus, dans un pays où les attaques au hasard contre les individus et la propriété semblent courantes, et sont considérées souvent par les autorités comme des actes perpétrés par les Islamistes militants, rien n'indique que la police ait soupçonné autre chose qu'un accident, comme l'indique le rapport qui a permis au demandeur de recevoir des indemnités d'assurance. |
|
| |
... le tribunal n'est pas persuadé que le demandeur ait une crainte bien fondée du fait de son lien familial. Rien n'indique que, depuis la réception de la première lettre du GIA en septembre 1994 jusqu'au départ du demandeur en février 1995, le demandeur ou d'autres membres de la famille dans la maison familiale aient été les objets de la persécution. |
|
| |
Dans le climat tendu qui règne actuellement en Algérie, le tribunal caractérise les anxiétés et les craintes du demandeur comme celles ressenties par tous les citoyens algériens. |
|
| |
Pour arriver à la décision selon laquelle la crainte de persécution du demandeur du fait de son ethnie berbère n'est pas bien fondée, le tribunal a tenu compte des éléments qui suivent. Depuis 1981, le demandeur n'a participé qu'à des activités culturelles berbères. Rien dans son témoignage ne montre qu'il ait été empêché, soit par les autorités, soit par les Islamistes militants, de participer à ces activités, ou de se rendre régulièrement au centre culturel berbère de son quartier. Rien n'indique non plus qu'on lui ait fait du mal pour ces raisons-là. Les insultes que lui auraient adressées des Islamistes du quartier étaient plus motivées par son lien familial avec ses frères et son style de vie laïque que par son appartenance à l'ethnie berbère. Le tribunal note aussi que la famille du demandeur habite toujours dans un quartier à forte concentration islamiste et qu'elle n'éprouve aucune difficulté. |
|
I am of the opinion that the Board committed reviewable errors. The Board erred in discounting the applicant's oral testimony, which elaborated on the information contained in his personal information form. The applicant's first language is Berber. He speaks Arabic and French as second languages. His personal information form was written in very poor French. As such, it was not implausible that his written skills would be poorer than his oral abilities and that his oral testimony would provide greater detail of the alleged events. As the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Moreno v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 21 Imm. L.R. (2d) 221 at 237, where an individual is trying to describe complex facts in a personal information form, "[a]t the very least, any perceived ambiguity cries out for clarification."
The Board also appears to have considered the applicant's Berber nationality in isolation from other factors, for example the Board's conclusion that the applicant merely shares the fears of all Algerians, fails to address the claimant's allegation that simply being of Berber nationality is considered un-Islamic.
Finally, in remarkably similar circumstances, the decision of Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer in Larbi Ayad v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (April 26, 1996) IMM-2820-95, is instructive. In Ayad, the Court found that the Board erred by ignoring evidence that the applicant's family had difficulties with GIA militants. In this case, the Board stated that the applicant's family had no problems between September and February, 1994, even though it at the same time recognized that the family was threatened with guns by GIA militants. In Ayad, Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer found that the Board had arrived at unsupported conclusions that the applicant was not truly seen as a police informant. In this case, the Board accepted that his neighbours considered him a police informant and that the GIA could put him in danger for being related to police and military personnel, yet concluded that the applicant was not seen as someone who should be persecuted. In Ayad, the Court held that the Board ignored documentary evidence that showed that the vast majority of the people killed in Algeria are unarmed civilians when it found that the GIA would only kill police officers who were friends of the applicant. Similarly, in this case the Board assumed that while the applicant's brothers are in danger, the GIA would not interest itself in the applicant.
For these reasons, the application is allowed. The matter is to be returned to a newly constituted Board for rehearing and reconsideration in accordance with law and these reasons.
O T T A W A
April 18, 1997 "James A. Jerome"
A.C.J.
Mr. Raoul Boulakia FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. David Tyndale FOR THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Raoul Boulakia FOR THE APPLICANT Toronto, Ontario
Mr. George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content