Docket: IMM-1282-14
Citation:
2015 FC 950
Ottawa, Ontario, August 6, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NADER AHMAD
HERMAS
LAMA
ALMAGHATHAH
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr Nader Ahmad Hermas arrived in Canada from
Israel in 2008. He successfully claimed refugee status on the basis of his fear
of political persecution as a Palestinian. The Israeli army had arrested him
and his brother in 2004. Mr Hermas was released after 18 days, but his brother
was kept in custody for 28 months. Mr Hermas also alleged persecution by Hamas.
[2]
After Mr Hermas applied for permanent residence,
an immigration officer concluded that Mr Hermas was inadmissible to Canada for
having been a member of a group that engaged in terrorism (under s 34(1)(f)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] –
see Annex). In particular, the officer found there were reasonable grounds to
believe that Mr Hermas had been a member of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine [PFLP].
[3]
Mr Hermas argues that the officer’s decision is
unreasonable because there was no evidence showing that he was actually a
member of the PFLP. At the time of his arrest at his home, there were alleged
members of the PFLP who were present and were also arrested. However, Mr Hermas
consistently claimed that he was blindfolded at the time and did not know who
else was arrested. Further, given that he was released from custody by Israeli
authorities and never charged with any offence, he suggests that there was
obviously no evidence that he was a member of the PFLP. Finally, Mr Hermas
points out that his brother, on the same evidence, was found not to be a member
of the PFLP and not inadmissible to Canada.
[4]
Mr Hermas asks me to quash the officer’s
decision and order another officer to reconsider the question of his
inadmissibility. Having considered the evidence before the officer, I can find
no basis for overturning the officer’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss
this application for judicial review.
[5]
The sole issue is whether the officer’s decision
was unreasonable.
II.
The Officer’s Decision
[6]
The officer reviewed the events giving rise to
Mr Hermas’s refugee claim. The officer went on to note that when Mr Hermas and
his brother were arrested, so were four others – one neighbour, and three men
who were staying at Mr Hermas’s home. Media reports at the time stated that
senior members of PFLP were arrested.
[7]
The officer considered Mr Hermas’s response to
this evidence. Mr Hermas said he did not remember who was present at the time
of his arrest. He was asleep, and then was handcuffed and blindfolded. He
claimed to have been arrested by mistake and released quickly. As far as he
knew, only family members were present in the house, and he was unaware that
others had been arrested. He did not know whether his brother knew the other
arrestees; they never discussed the situation. At another point, he said that
the arrested persons were friends of his brother who were more politically active.
He was aware of the media reports cited by the officer, but did not consider
them to be reliable. In fact, he thought the arrestees might actually have been
staying in a neighbouring house. He denied any involvement with the PFLP.
[8]
The officer also noted that Mr Hermas’s brother
acknowledged that the persons arrested at the home were members of the PFLP.
[9]
The officer considered the broad definition
given to the term “member” and concluded that Mr Hermas fell within it. Mr
Hermas was aware that the arrested persons were wanted by Israeli authorities
and gave them safe haven in his home. In doing so, according to the officer, Mr
Hermas knowingly furthered the cause of the PFLP. The officer also noted that
Mr Hermas had not been forthright with Canadian authorities, sometimes giving
contradictory evidence and other times providing implausible answers.
[10]
Finally, the officer found that the PFLP was a
terrorist organization and, therefore, that Mr Hermas was inadmissible to Canada
as a member of it.
III.
Was the Officer’s decision unreasonable?
[11]
Mr Hermas contends that the officer’s decision
was unreasonable because there was little evidence showing that he was a member
of the PFLP. The evidence in respect of his brother, he says, was stronger and
yet he was found not to be inadmissible.
[12]
I disagree. The officer’s conclusion represented
a defensible outcome based on the facts and the law.
[13]
As noted above, the officer found a number of
inconsistencies and implausibilities in Mr Hermas’s evidence. This provided
grounds for doubting Mr Hermas’s claim not to have had any involvement with the
PFLP.
[14]
Further, Mr Hermas’s evidence was distinct from
the evidence underlying his brother’s application. His brother admitted his
contact with PFLP members but claimed to be unaware of their status, and he
showed that he had not undergone the screening that prospective members must
usually pass.
[15]
In other words, in Mr Hermas’s brother’s case,
credibility did not appear to be an issue.
[16]
Therefore, I cannot conclude that the officer’s
finding – that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Hermas had a
sufficient connection to the PFLP to be considered a member – was unreasonable
on the evidence.
IV.
Conclusion and Disposition
[17]
The officer’s conclusion that there were
reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Hermas was inadmissible to Canada for
having been a member of the PFLP, a terrorist organization, represented a
defensible outcome based on the facts and the law. I must, therefore, dismiss
this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of
general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
Email this Content