Date: 20101215
Docket: IMM-3239-09
Citation: 2010 FC 431
Ottawa, Ontario, December 15, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
KAMAL
GUIRGUIS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT
I. OVERVIEW
[1]
The
Applicant, a citizen of Egypt, seeks judicial review of an Immigration
and Refugee Board (IRB) decision denying his refugee claim and his protection
claim because of credibility concerns, the existence of an internal flight
alternative (IFA) and of adequate state protection.
[2]
The
essential problem with the Applicant’s position is that he is trying to ride
two horses at the same time while travelling in different directions. First, he
said that he feared his brothers but that claim is weak so he claims that he
fears some unidentified person or persons because of his conversion of
convenience from the Muslim faith to Christianity. The Applicant’s inconsistent
tale affects all parts of his claim including that of the absence of state
protection and of an IFA.
II. FACTS
[3]
The
Applicant is from a large family of Coptic Christians. Guirguis converted to
Islam in order to marry his Kurdish Iraqi wife. He also took out Iraqi
citizenship. He claimed that his brothers disowned him because of his
conversion and considered him dead.
[4]
As
a result of the Iraq-Kurdish war, the Applicant, his wife and two daughters
moved to Egypt. He claimed
that his wife and children were harassed by his family. He lived apart from
them and they sought asylum in the Canadian Embassy from where they were
accepted as refugees.
[5]
The
Applicant eventually secured a temporary resident permit based on his wife’s
pending sponsorship. This plan fell apart when their marriage did likewise and
faced with the non-renewal of his TRP, he claimed refugee protection.
[6]
The
Applicant claimed that he had returned to his Christian roots and that his
problems with his Egyptian family began to dissipate. He claimed that he
returned to visit his terminally ill brother and attend his funeral but also
claimed that he stayed anonymous during his visit.
[7]
Guirguis’
refugee claim was based on his conversion back to Christianity and his fear
that Islamic extremists would target him as an apostate. In testimony he
suggested that his primary fear was of his family, who had apparently
originally been unhappy with his conversion to Islam. In his refugee intake
interview he claimed fear of family due to his marriage, some fear of being an
apostate and that an individual would kill him. His PIF was centred on fear of
his family and their retribution.
[8]
There
were numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and obfuscations in his IRB
evidence. However, the central feature of his evidence related to his
relationship with and fear of his family.
[9]
Not
surprisingly, the first basis of rejection of the Applicant’s claim was
credibility. The Member outlined a number of the inconsistencies and
contradictions which went to the root of his claim.
[10]
The
Member also found state protection, although spotty, existed for Christians in Egypt. The
Applicant had not sought protection because of some ill defined fear of police
fanatics.
[11]
The
Member also found an IFA in Alexandria where no one would know
about his marriage and conversion more than 14 years previous.
III. ANALYSIS
[12]
The
standard of review for credibility findings is reasonableness, as it is for
state protection and IFA.
[13]
Even
if the Member committed the legal errors alleged, including failure to consider
whether the Applicant was a member of the Christian faith and whether he
would be persecuted as such, the findings of state protection and IFA address
his refugee protection claim completely.
[14]
The
problem with the Applicant’s claim of legal error is that he was unclear about the
nature of his real fear. The Member was not required to fathom out a case for
the Applicant. The Member in fact considered both aspects of his claim - fear
of his family and fear of extremists due to his apostate status.
[15]
The
Member found that the Applicant was not likely to be identified as a convert;
therefore, he did not fall within the member of the class – apostate – whose
risk had to be considered. This was a finding which was open to the Member,
particularly in light of the Applicant’s contradictory positions.
[16]
The
Member did address fear of Islamic extremists and the status of apostates in
the consideration of state protection and IFA. The finding on both issues was
reasonable. The Member recognized the spotty record of police in regard to
Christians but also noted evidence of positive response by authorities. The
state protection analysis is balanced and cogent.
[17]
The
IFA finding addressed the Applicant’s attempt to rebut the suggestion of an IFA
– a rebuttal clearly informed by the Applicant’s credibility (or lack thereof).
IV. CONCLUSION
[18]
Therefore,
this judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
Email this Content