Date: 20070620
Docket: IMM-4999-06
Citation: 2007 FC 662
Toronto, Ontario, June 20,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
AMJAD
M. S. QALAWI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Amjad
Qalawi is a Jordanian citizen. He sought refugee protection in this country
based upon his fear of members of a rival family, who allegedly wanted to kill
him because he had dishonoured their female relative by having engaged in an
illicit relationship with her.
[2]
Although
the Board found that no single negative credibility finding was sufficient, by
itself, to undermine Mr. Qalawi’s claim, the Board nevertheless found that his
story lacked credibility, when viewed in its entirety.
[3]
Mr.
Qalawi now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision, asserting that a
number of the Board’s negative credibility findings were patently
unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, I agree, and as a consequence, the
application will be allowed.
Background
[4]
Mr.
Qalawi says that while he was attending university in Jordan, he became
involved in a clandestine sexual relationship with a girl named Faten Tahar El
Edwan. The couple planned to marry after they had each completed their
education.
[5]
When
Faten completed her studies, her family began pressuring her to marry a suitor
chosen by the family. Unwilling to marry this man, she confessed to her family
that she had been involved in an intimate relationship with Mr. Qalawi, which
had resulted in her having had an abortion. Her admission enraged her family.
[6]
In
the meantime, Mr. Qalawi had come to Canada to continue his
studies. Mr. Qalawi’s father contacted him in Canada and told him
that he should not return to Jordan, as Faten’s relatives had threatened to
kill him for having dishonoured their family.
[7]
Mr.
Qalawi’s father then contacted Faten’s family in order to discuss a possible
resolution to the problem, and it was ultimately agreed by the elders and
sheiks of both Mr. Qalawi’s and Faten’s respective tribes that Mr. Qalawi would
return to Jordan and marry Faten.
[8]
Mr.
Qalawi purchased a plane ticket for his return to Jordan. He was
scheduled to leave Canada for Jordan on June 28, 2005. However, shortly before
his departure, two of Faten’s brothers and a cousin announced that they were
rejecting the agreement, telling Mr. Qalawi’s father that they would kill his
son if he were to return to Jordan. As a consequence, Mr. Qalawi decided to
remain in Canada and seek
refugee protection.
[9]
Faten’s
fate is not known.
Analysis
[10]
One
of the reasons given by the Board for finding Mr. Qalawi’s story not to be
credible was that the date on which he purchased his ticket to return to Jordan was two days
earlier than the date on which the written agreement between the two families
was signed. According to the Board, it was inconceivable that Mr. Qalawi
would purchase a ticket before he was satisfied that an agreement had in fact
been reached.
[11]
Mr.
Qalawi explained that his father had contacted him and had advised him that an
agreement had been reached between the two families, and that he should return
to Jordan to marry
Faten. While the agreement was not immediately reduced to writing, Mr. Qalawi
says that he relied upon the fact that an agreement had in fact been reached to
plan his return to Jordan, in order to deliver on his part of the
bargain. The Board does not appear to have appreciated this explanation, as it
is not specifically addressed in the decision.
[12]
The
Board also found that the negotiation process described by Mr. Qalawi was not
referred to in his Personal Information Form (or “PIF”). Given that this was a
central element of Mr. Qalawi’s story, this was, in the Board’s view, a
material omission going to the heart of his claim, calling his credibility into
question.
[13]
A
review of Mr. Qalawi’s PIF, the narrative portion of which is quite brief,
discloses that he did mention that after the couple’s relationship became
known, his father tried to appease Faten’s family, offering to have Mr. Qalawi return
to Jordan, and marry
Faten, and that such a resolution was ultimately agreed to. While Mr. Qalawi
undoubtedly provided greater detail regarding the negotiations in his oral
testimony, I am not persuaded that there was a material omission from his PIF
of the sort identified by the Board.
[14]
Faten’s
family lived in Amman. Her father was a successful businessman, and
some of her brothers had evidently attended university. As such, the Board
found that the family did not fit the profile of one whose members would be
involved in an honour killing.
[15]
However,
the documentary evidence before the Board makes specific reference to the fact
that honour killings are not confined to poor rural families, but occur in
wealthy urban families as well. While the Board is presumed to have considered
all of the evidence before it, this evidence runs directly counter to the
Board’s conclusion, and should have been addressed: Cepeda-Gutierrez v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425, 157
F.T.R. 35 at ¶14 – 17.
[16]
The
Board also did not accept that Faten’s brothers and cousin would threaten to
kill Mr. Qalawi, given that an agreement had allegedly been entered into
between the families for Faten to marry him. Here again, there was documentary
evidence before the Board of several cases where honour killings were carried
out after pledges were signed by male family members promising not to harm
errant individuals. In my view, this evidence should have been addressed by
the Board, given that it runs contrary to the Board’s conclusion.
[17]
I
am satisfied that a number of the Board’s other negative credibility findings
were not patently unreasonable. However, given the Board’s statement that it
was the cumulative effect of all of the negative findings that led to its
conclusion that Mr. Qalawi’s overall story was not credible, it is not possible
to ascertain what effect the findings that I have found to have been made in
error would have had on the Board’s analysis and on its ultimate conclusion.
[18]
That
is, it cannot safely be concluded that the Board would have come to the same
conclusion, had it not made the impugned findings. As a consequence, the
application will be allowed.
Certification
[19]
Neither
party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that:
1. This
application for judicial review is allowed, and the matter is remitted to a
different panel of the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination; and
2. No serious question
of general importance is certified.
“Anne Mactavish”
FEDERAL
COURT
NAMES
OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4999-06
STYLE OF
CAUSE: AMJAD M. S. QALAWI v.
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 19, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: MACTAVISH
J.
DATED: June
20, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Neil Cohen FOR
THE APPLICANT
Mr. Michael Butterfield FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Neil Cohen
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR
THE APPLICANT
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content