Docket: IMM-22986-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1770
Toronto, Ontario, November 3, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MOHAMMAD SAMI HUSNI ABUHASHEESH |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Mohammad Sami Husni Abuhasheesh [Applicant] seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated November 25, 2024 [Decision] confirming a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.
[2] The Applicant argues that if you “pull on the threads”
of the RAD’s Decision, it unravels in light of the inconsistencies and microscopic focus of the RAD. Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, I have found no such errors and instead consider the RAD’s findings to have been reasonably open to it based on the facts and the law that constrained it. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
II. Facts
[3] The Applicant is a citizen of Jordan who was involved in a car accident in May 2019, which left a man paralyzed. After being detained by police for two weeks, the Applicant was released and cleared of any wrongdoing. The Applicant claims that the man was a member of the Awad tribe who burned his house down in an act of revenge which forced the Applicant to live in hiding until he fled Jordan, fearing for his life.
[4] The Applicant applied for a Canadian student visa in 2019 with a plan to stay in Canada until his family could reach a settlement with the Awad tribe. In October 2022, when the Awad tribe refused to settle and instead issued a tribal judgment [Tribal Judgment] sentencing the Applicant to death, the Applicant’s fear “crystallized,”
and he claimed refugee protection in Canada.
[5] The RPD and the RAD accepted that the Applicant had been involved in a car accident that resulted in injuries to another person. However, the RPD and RAD both rejected the Applicant’s refugee claim finding that the Applicant had not credibly established that he was targeted for revenge by the Awad tribe or that he faces a forward-facing risk in Jordan.
III. Issues
[6] The only issue raised in this application is whether the RAD’s Decision is reasonable as that standard of review is described in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. This Court must start by considering the RAD’s reasons read in light of the evidentiary record and consider whether the Decision falls within a “range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law”
that constrained the RAD (Vavilov at para 86 and Sailsman v Canada (National Revenue), 2014 FC 1033 at para 27). Reasonableness review is not a de novo review, nor does it allow for a reweighing of the evidence that was before the decision maker (Vavilov at paras 124-125).
IV. Analysis
[7] The Applicant submits that the RAD’s credibility findings in respect of the core of his claim and his immigration history are flawed, which results in the entire Decision unravelling thereby warranting this Court’s intervention (citing Naivelt v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1261 at para 9).
A. Thread 1: matters going to the core of the Applicant’s claim
[8] The Applicant submits that the RAD made unreasonable findings going to whether he faces a forward-facing risk from the Awad tribe if he returns to Jordan.
[9] First, the Applicant says the RAD erred in considering that the Applicant’s failure to mention the Tribal Judgment in his original narrative to be a material omission that was not satisfactorily explained. According to the Applicant, however, he was always consistent that he was claiming refugee status by reason that reconciliation with the Awad tribe had failed, and the Tribal Judgment is merely a document that reflects this fact.
[10] There is no question that it was open to the RAD to consider this to be a significant omission considering that the Applicant filed his claim one week after the issuance of the Tribal Judgment. The RAD reasonably considered the Tribal Judgment to be highly relevant to the Applicant’s forward-facing risk in Jordan given that it was the event that “crystallized”
the Applicant’s fear and caused him to file a claim for protection. Moreover, the RAD’s finding was based on more than this omission. The RAD noted the fact that the Applicant’s explanation for this omission changed between his first and second hearing adding to the inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence and also that the Applicant failed to explain why the letters from his brother and uncle fail to mention the Tribal Judgment. This Court has found not only that the accumulation of contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions regarding core elements of a refugee claim can support a negative conclusion about an applicant’s credibility, but that the Court should afford significant deference to such findings (Lawani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924 at paras 19, 22).
[11] Second, the Applicant suggests that the RAD erred in finding that the evidence was inconsistent as to whether or not he went into hiding. The Applicant points to the fact that his evidence is actually consistent that after his house was burned down, he went into hiding and he never returned to his home.
[12] The Applicant’s argument amounts to a disagreement with how the RAD viewed his evidence. The RAD’s concern focused on the fact that the evidence included three different versions of where and when the Applicant hid as between the Applicant’s online application form, his Basis of Claim [BOC] narrative, Amended BOC narrative, his testimony and his uncle’s letter. The RAD noted that the Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for these inconsistencies other than to say that there were translation problems in his original narrative. This finding was reasonably open to the RAD.
[13] Finally, the Applicant takes issue with the fact that while the RAD accepted that the Applicant’s house burned down, it found that the Applicant had not established that the Awad tribe was responsible for the fire. The Applicant says that the RAD ignored the fire report which stated that the fire was “intentional”
and the only reasonable inference is that the Awad tribe set the fire as an act of revenge. Even if I were to agree, this Court should defer to the RAD’s consideration of the evidence including the drawing of inferences absent a fundamental error in the fact-finding process that undermines the acceptability of the Decision (Doyle v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 237 at para 3). No such fundamental error has been shown.
[14] I find therefore that it was reasonably open to the RAD to consider each of the various inconsistencies and omissions and find that taken together, the Applicant had not credibly established a forward-facing risk in Jordan.
B. Thread 2: the Applicant’s lack of candour in his immigration history
[15] The RAD noted the Applicant’s “lack of candour”
regarding his immigration history.
[16] The Applicant argues that a review of his testimony reveals no such lack of candour, and any inconsistencies in his testimony are due to a variety of factors including: (i) the vagueness of the questions that were posed to him at the RPD hearing; (ii) his poor English skills; (iii) the fact that he suffers from anxiety; and (iv) he did not have the assistance of counsel when he filled out the online form.
[17] A fair review of the Decision shows that the RAD in fact considered all of these factors in its consideration of the manner in which the RPD hearing was conducted. The RAD noted in the Decision that not only was the Applicant provided breaks at the hearing and questions were rephrased as needed, but no accommodations were sought in respect of the Applicant’s medical condition. While the Applicant did not have the assistance of counsel when filling out the online form, he did have the assistance of an interpreter. Moreover, the RAD’s focus was on the Applicant’s persistent lack of candour: the Applicant failed to disclose his significant number of study and work permit applications over many years (including four negative decisions) and not just in his online form, but in his BOC and amended BOC.
[18] I find that it was reasonably open to the RAD to find that these omissions and the Applicant’s failure to explain them, contributed to the Applicant’s overall lack of credibility. The Applicant’s suggestion that these omissions are not significant because they do not go to the core of his claim, ignores the number of inconsistencies and failures that are detailed in the RAD’s Decision. It is also important to distinguish between the drawing of a negative inference which is determinative, and one like that made by the RAD, which merely contributes to an overall finding of credibility (Huang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 148 at para 31).
V. Conclusion
[19] Ultimately, the Applicant’s arguments amount to a request that this Court reassess and reweigh the evidence that was before the RAD and substitute its own assessment of the evidence. This is not the role of the Court on judicial review (Vavilov at para 125). Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Email this Content