Docket: IMM-2774-16
Citation:
2016 FC 1353
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, December 7, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
KARAKOUS MOURAD
|
|
SOUNYA
ARAKILIYAN
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIP
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The applicants are challenging the
reasonableness of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to confirm the decision of the Refugee
Protection Division (RPD) that the applicants are not Convention refugees or
persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
[2]
The applicants, a husband and wife who are 76 and
61 years of age respectively, are dual citizens of Syria and Armenia. Until
2015, the couple, who are of Christian faith, lived in Damascus with their son.
In March 2015, while the couple was out, their house was hit by a shell. When
they returned home, the applicants were horrified to see the response team
cleaning up debris, not knowing if their son was still inside. After this
incident, they decided to leave Syria. The applicants allege that they
considered settling in Armenia, but decided against it given that they have
never lived there and have no family who they could count on there. In April 2015,
the applicants arrived in Canada to join their daughter and claimed refugee
protection on June 4, 2015. Because returning to live in Syria was out of the
question, the applicants argue, in their claim, that they cannot settle safely
in Armenia because they fear persecution and discrimination by reason of their
Syrian origin and fear for their lives because of the very difficult conditions
in that country. The RPD and RAD rejected their refugee protection claim.
[3]
Because the applicants did not establish the fears
or risks of persecution in Armenia, the alleged risks associated with Syria
were not examined by the RPD or the RAD. The issue here is whether the RAD
committed a reviewable error by confirming the RPD’s decision given the
evidence in the record and the applicable legislation. In accordance with the
principles established by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration) v Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] FCJ No 313 [Huruglica],
the RAD reassessed the evidence in the record to determine whether the RPD’s
decision was well founded. On judicial review of RAD decisions, this Court must
apply the standard of reasonableness and can intervene only if the findings in
the RAD decision fall outside the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which
are defensible in respect of the facts and law.
[4]
For the following reasons, this application for
judicial review is dismissed.
[5]
First, it is important to note that on August 21,
2015, the RPD found that the risks alleged by the applicants did not meet the requisite
threshold for persecution established in the case law. While the documentary
evidence shows violence towards Syrian-Armenians, attacks are sporadic and target
Syrian merchants. The applicants are both retired. Moreover, the fact that they
do not have family or assets in Armenia does not meet any of the grounds of
persecution set out in section 96 of the IRPA. Regarding the fears provided for
in section 97 of the IRPA, the documentary evidence in the record indicates
that poverty and limited access to health care affect all Armenian citizens, not
only Syrian newcomers. The RPD also noted that the Armenian government has put
in place several special measures to accommodate newcomers—for example, the
creation of a community called [translation]
“new Aleppo”, in which the government or charity associations will cover half of
the cost of rent for Syrian residents. Finally, the RPD
found that the applicants did not demonstrate that their daughter could not
support them financially in Armenia. While sensitive to the particular
situation of the applicants, the RPD found that they did not establish a
serious possibility of persecution in Armenia or a risk that they would face the
hardship set out in section 97 of the IRPA.
[6]
On appeal of that decision, the applicants first
contended that the RPD confused the criteria set out in sections 96 and 97 of
the IRPA, thus imposing too high a burden of proof on them. Furthermore, the RPD
apparently analyzed only the documentary evidence from the perspective of
section 96 of the IRPA, while the applicants’ claims were more based on the
risks set out in section 97 of the IRPA.
[7]
After a review of the evidence in the record,
the RAD rejected all of these arguments and confirmed the RPD’s findings. Given
their Syrian-Armenian dual citizenship, the RAD determined that the applicants
could relocate to Armenia safely without a risk of persecution or a threat to
their lives. While the documentary evidence on the situation in Armenia was
used as, in a way, the common core for the analysis of sections 96 and 97 of
the IRPA, the RPD had a clear understanding of the applicable tests for each
provision. The RAD stated that, under section 97 of the IRPA, it was up to the
applicants to prove that their fear was personal and different from that of other
citizens in Armenia. However, the documentary evidence instead shows that the
socio-economic challenges raised by the applicants affect the general population
of Armenia, which is currently grappling with unemployment and a difficult
economic situation. The RAD also acknowledged efforts made by the Armenian
government to welcome Syrian nationals. As a result, the RPD’s findings under
section 97 of the IRPA were well founded. Concerning the fears of persecution
under section 96 of the IRPA, the RAD came to the same conclusions as the RPD,
that is, that the sporadic violence noted in the documentation targets “Syrian merchants” in particular, which the applicants are not.
Consequently, the fear of persecution was not accepted by the RAD. Lastly, the
RAD noted that the evidence in the record does not sufficiently demonstrate
that the applicants’ daughter cannot continue to support them financially in
Armenia. The RAD thus dismissed the applicants’ appeal.
[8]
Before this Court, the applicants are basically
reiterating all of the arguments that they unsuccessfully made before the RPD
and the RAD. To that effect, they point out to the Court that they cannot
settle safely in Armenia because of their fear of persecution and discrimination
by reason of their Syrian origin, and that they could not support themselves in
Armenia because of their age and their limited financial resources. In
addition, the applicants question the reasoning and findings of the RAD to
dismiss the appeal of their refugee protection claim, but do not demonstrate
how the RAD committed a reviewable error in its analysis that could be
determinative. The applicants instead simply state, without elaborating, that
the RAD erred in its analysis of the concept of state protection. Lastly, the
applicants argue that the RAD also erred by incidentally considering in its
analysis that the applicants’ daughter would be able to support them financially
in Armenia. On this point, the Court notes that the RAD decision must be read as
a whole. Moreover, any error made by the RPD or the RAD in this regard, if any,
is not determinative.
[9]
After reviewing the applicants’ claims, the
Court does not see any issue that could be successful in judicial review. In
fact, disagreeing with the analysis of the RAD is not sufficient to obtain
judicial review. It is clear that the situation in Armenia is far from ideal
for Syrian newcomers. That said, in its analysis, the RAD considered various
reliable information sources that supported its finding that the applicants do
not fit the profile of at-risk individuals, as their fear of not receiving
adequate health care is shared by the general population of Armenia.
[10]
The applicants’ refugee protection claim, which
is based on sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA, is not a request for an exemption
under section 25 of the IRPA from having to apply for a permanent resident visa
from outside Canada. As the RPD noted, while it was sensitive to the applicants’
particular situation, it does not have jurisdiction to rule on humanitarian and
compassionate considerations, nor does the RAD on appeal. Furthermore, the RPD
clearly stated that [translation] “the Armenian government, with the help of
the Armenian diaspora and population, is helping Syrian-Armenians resettle,
providing health care to the most vulnerable and helping to find housing”.
[11]
In conclusion, the RAD’s decision is reasonable.
The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. No question of
general importance is raised in this case.
Email this Content