(1) There is no serious possibility, on a balance of probabilities, of the applicants being persecuted in the part of the country where an IFA exists; and

(2) It would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimants, for them to seek refuge there.

[22 ] In Singh, the Court noted that “the analysis of an IFA is based on the principle that international protection can only be offered to refugee protection claimants in cases where the country of origin is unable to provide to the person requesting refugee protection adequate protection everywhere within their territory” (Singh at para 26). In short, the refugee claimant must be a refugee from a country, not a certain part or region of that country.

[23 ] If an IFA is established, then the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the IFA is inadequate and that it is unreasonable to settle there (Thirunavukkarasu at para 10); Salaudeen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 39 at para 26; Manzoor-Ul-Haq v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1077 at para 24; Feboke v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 155 at paras 43–44).

B. First prong

[24 ] Mr. Djeddi and his sons claim that the RPD and RAD erred in finding that Mr. Djeddi was not credible. In addition, Mr. Djeddi argues that the risk is the same for himself and his wife and that, therefore, since Mr. Djeddi’s wife’s refugee claim was accepted, so should his and his sons’ claims. Mr. Djeddi also argues that his testimony was not considered, which makes the Decision unreasonable. Finally, Mr. Djeddi maintains that he would be cut off from the rest of his family in Algeria because he could not reveal his location to them, given the risk of his father finding him if he did.

[25 ] I do not agree with the arguments put forward by Mr. Djeddi and his sons, and I am of the view that by proceeding as it did, the RAD did not err in its assessment of the first prong of the IFA test.

[26 ] First, I note that in his submissions, Mr. Djeddi appears to be challenging the reasonableness of the RPD decision, not that of the RAD Decision, which makes most of his arguments inapplicable to this judicial review. It is the RAD Decision that is the subject of this application for judicial review, not the RPD decision. Thus, Mr. Djeddi’s allegations about the RAD’s assessment of his credibility are groundless because, in the Decision, the RAD does not challenge Mr. Djeddi’s credibility or question the motivation of his agents of persecution. On the contrary, the RAD agrees with Mr. Djeddi that his credibility is not at issue and that the agents of persecution have the necessary motivation to find them. The RAD’s findings are based on the existence of a viable IFA in Oran or Constantine because the agents of persecution do not have the means to find Mr. Djeddi and his sons in these areas. Rather, it was the capacity of the agents of persecution to find the Djeddis in the IFAs that was at issue, and I am not satisfied that the RAD erred in finding that Mr. Djeddi and his sons failed to establish that their family or maraboutic communities would be able to find them in Oran or Constantine.

[27 ] In this respect, the RAD properly considered all the documents filed by Mr. Djeddi. It refers to each of them in the Decision. After analysis, the RAD found that there was no evidence to support the presence of zawiyas—brotherhoods of religious communities in Algeria—in Oran or Constantine. According to the RAD, the evidence instead showed that zawiyas are found in rural areas, not in urban areas such as the ones where the two IFAs are located. The RAD also assessed the possibility of maraboutic communities having power over Algerian judicial or political authorities but found that the evidence did not support such a finding. The documents showed only that zawiyas seek to influence politicians, but that the existence of such an influence is not established.

[28 ] Contrary to Mr. Djeddi’s argument, the RAD also examined the [translation] “network of maraboutic communities” and the “national organization of the zawiyas” that would enable Mr. Djeddi’s family to find them wherever they took refuge in Algeria. However, the RAD found that the evidence did not support Mr. Djeddi’s argument that this network would give Mr. Djeddi’s father direct power to find them in Oran or Constantine, considering that there is no evidence on the record of the existence of zawiyas in these cities. As the RAD points out, [translation] “the mere fact that these are Muslim religious communities is insufficient to establish that they would join the agents of persecution in looking for the appellants and subject them to a serious possibility of persecution.” The RAD further determined that the documentary evidence showed that zawiyas endorse a less conservative religious movement than was alleged for the families of Mr. Djeddi and his wife. Thus, there is no indication that zawiyas would help Mr. Djeddi’s father to find Mr. Djeddi and his sons for the sole purpose of restoring the family’s honour.

[29 ] The Decision demonstrates in a transparent and intelligible manner that the RAD took directly into account the documentary evidence filed by Mr. Djeddi and his sons, as well as the arguments put forward by them. The reasons refer to both repeatedly, in a comprehensive and in‑depth analysis. The RAD considered the documentary evidence as a whole and devoted several paragraphs to it in the Decision. The RAD simply determined that, on a balance of probabilities, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that Mr. Djeddi and his sons would face a serious possibility of persecution on religious grounds if they returned to Algeria, be it in Oran or Constantine.

[30 ] In addition, the RAD reasonably found that Mr. Djeddi and his sons would not be forced to live in hiding. The RAD relied on Mr. Djeddi’s testimony in which he claimed that he had ceased all contact with his family in Algeria since filing his refugee claim in February 2019. Thus, Mr. Djeddi’s argument that he would be forced to cease all contact with his family and not disclose his address is without merit, since he already has no contact with his family. Unlike in Rivera Benavides v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 810, cited by Mr. Djeddi in this case, the agents of persecution are the families of Mr. Djeddi and his wife, not groups outside the family. In these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the RAD to consider that Mr. Djeddi should and could continue to live without contacting his family.

[31 ] The RAD’s findings on the existence of viable IFAs are essentially factual: They are based on ample documentary evidence, and they go to the very heart of the RAD’s expertise in matters of immigration and refugee protection. It is well established that the RAD takes advantage of its members’ specialized knowledge to assess evidence relating to facts that fall within its area of expertise. In such circumstances, the standard of reasonableness requires the Court to show great deference to the RAD’s findings. It is not the task of a reviewing court to reweigh and reassess the evidence on the record, or to reassess the RAD’s findings of fact and substitute its own (Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 at para 55). Rather, it must consider the reasons as a whole, in the context of the record (Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at para 53) and simply limit itself to determining whether the conclusions are irrational or arbitrary.

[32 ] In this case, the RAD specifically considered Mr. Djeddi and his sons’ particular situation while analyzing their claims and fears. Based on the evidence before it, the RAD could properly conclude that Mr. Djeddi and his sons had not shown, on a balance of probabilities, that their agents of persecution would have the means to pursue them in Oran or Constantine.

[33 ] At the hearing, Mr. Djeddi’s counsel was unable to identify any evidence that the RAD might have overlooked or excluded from its analysis. In fact, the arguments put forward by Mr. Djeddi and his sons simply express their disagreement with the RAD’s assessment of the evidence on the IFAs and invite the Court to prefer their assessment and reading to that of the administrative decision maker. However, this is not the role of the Court on judicial review (Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 113 at para 99). On judicial review, the Court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence or substitute its own assessment for that of the administrative decision maker.

C. Second prong

[34 ] Under the second prong of the test relating to the viability of the proposed IFAs, the RAD had to analyze whether it would be reasonable for Mr. Djeddi and his sons to relocate to Oran or Constantine. This second prong of the test of whether an IFA is viable requires “actual and concrete evidence” of the risk to the claimant’s life and safety if the claimant was to relocate to the IFA (Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 FC 164 (FCA) at para 15; Olusola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 799 [Olusola] at para 9). The RAD found that, in the circumstances, the evidence showed that Mr. Djeddi and his sons could reasonably settle in Oran or Constantine, given Mr. Djeddi’s knowledge of French, Arabic and Kabyle. In addition, his technical and university training would enable him to find a job, and the country conditions would enable his children to go to school and receive healthcare.

[35 ] Mr. Djeddi did not put forward any arguments or evidence before the RAD concerning this part of the analysis. In this respect, the Decision is not unreasonable, because it is based on the evidence on the record. Again, the RAD did not fail to consider evidence that would contradict its conclusions (Vavilov at para 126; Singh at para 38).

[36 ] The burden of demonstrating that an IFA is unreasonable in a given case, a burden which rests with the claimant, is quite an exacting one (Elusme v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 225 at para 25; Jean Baptiste v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1106 at para 21. In fact, it requires nothing less than demonstrating the existence of conditions so unfavourable that they would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area. This evidence was simply not provided by Mr. Djeddi and his sons.

[37 ] Given the RAD’s assessment of the evidence while taking into account the circumstances surrounding the situation of Mr. Djeddi and his sons, the Court has no reason to intervene (Sadiq v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 430 at para 49). Once again, the RAD’s expertise in immigration requires the Court to show great deference to its findings on this second prong of the test (Singh at para 32).

[38 ] As a result of Vavilov, the reasons given by administrative decision makers have taken on greater importance and have become the starting point for the analysis. They are the primary mechanism by which administrative decision makers show that their decisions are reasonable—both to the affected parties and to the reviewing courts (Vavilov at para 81). They “explain how and why a decision was made”, demonstrate that “the decision was made in a fair and lawful manner” and shield against “the perception of arbitrariness in the exercise of public power” (Vavilov at para 79). In short, it is the reasons that establish the justification for the decision.

[39 ] In this case, the RAD’s findings are reasonable and justified in light of the facts of the case. The Decision refers to the documentary evidence submitted and to Mr. Djeddi’s testimony. It provides justifiable, intelligible and transparent reasons that are based on a reasonable assessment of the facts and evidence on the record, which is the basis for a reasonable decision. At most, Mr. Djeddi’s arguments would require a reassessment of the evidence, which the Court is not allowed to do when it acts in judicial review under the standard of reasonableness (Vavilov at para 125); Adeleye at para 25; Olusola at para 28). In the end, the errors alleged by Mr. Djeddi and his sons do not cause me to “lose confidence in the outcome reached by the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 123).

IV. Conclusion

[40 ] For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Djeddi and his sons’ application for judicial review is dismissed. I find nothing irrational in the RAD’s decision-making process or in its conclusions. I instead find that the RAD’s analysis bears the hallmarks of transparency, justifiability and intelligibility, and is not tainted by any reviewable error. Under the standard of reasonableness, it is sufficient that the Decision be based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and be justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the administrative decision maker. This is clearly the case here.

[41 ] Neither party proposed a general question for certification. I agree that none arises here.

JUDGMENT in IMM-1160-22

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1.The application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs.
2.No question of general importance is certified.

“Denis Gascon”

Judge

Certified true translation

Johanna Kratz

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

imm-1160-22

STYLE OF CAUSE:

MOURAD DJEDDI ET AL v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE

DATE OF HEARING:

NOVEMBER 14, 2022

JUDGMENT AND REASONS:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Fedor Kyrpichov, counsel

La Prairie, Quebec

FOR THE APPLICANTS

Attorney General of Canada

Montréal, Quebec

FOR THE RESPONDENT

You are here

Djeddi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1580

Citations2022 FC 1580

Case tabs

Citations
2022 FC 1580