Docket: IMM-5699-25
Citation: 2026 FC 308
Toronto, Ontario, March 5, 2026
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MOHAMMAD ZUHIER METHKAL BUSHNAQ |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Mohammad Zuhier Methkal Bushnaq [Applicant], seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated December 9, 2024 [the Decision], upholding a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] finding that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The determinative issue for both the RPD and the RAD was the availability of a viable internal flight alternative [IFA].
[2] While the Applicant raised a number of issues with the RAD’s assessment of the evidence, I find that none of the imperfections in the Decision are significant enough to cause this Court to question the reasonableness of the RAD’s IFA analysis. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
II. Facts
A. The Applicant’s fear of persecution
[3] The Applicant is a citizen of Jordan and a Muslim man from Irbid whose fear of persecution stems from the discovery of his forbidden relationship with a woman referred to as “SH”
who is a member of the Alghool and Bani Hani tribes. The Applicant and SH carried out their relationship in secret beginning in 2016 until February 2022, when SH’s cousin spotted the couple together and informed SH’s father. The father beat SH and threatened the Applicant’s life. The Applicant left Irbid the same day and stayed at a friend’s home in Zarqa for a month. In March of 2022, he relocated to Amman where he stayed until December 31, 2022, when he fled to Canada.
[4] Once in Canada, the Applicant learned that SH’s family later came to his home in search of him and that SH was being forced to marry another man. The Applicant called SH’s father begging him not to force her to marry. According to the Applicant, SH’s father threatened to kill the Applicant even if it took the rest of his life to do so.
[5] The Applicant made a refugee claim in Canada in April 2023.
B. The RPD decision
[6] The RPD dismissed the Applicant’s claim finding that he has an IFA as the agents of harm were not shown to have the means and motivation to pursue him. The RPD also considered that the Applicant had not shown that it was unreasonable in all the circumstances for the Applicant to relocate to the IFA.
C. The RAD Decision
[7] The availability of a viable IFA was also the determinative issue for the RAD. The RAD found that the Applicant had not shown that SH’s family are motivated to search for him in the IFA, which is hundreds of kilometers from the Applicant’s home in Irbid considering that they did not search for him in Zarqa or Amman, which are closer to Irbid, nor did the Applicant receive threats while he was living in these locations. The RAD also found that it was not unreasonable for the Applicant to safely relocate to the IFA considering his age, education and past work experience.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[8] The Applicant has raised issues going to the reasonableness of the Decision.
[9] The parties agree that the standard of review is reasonableness as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paragraphs 16-17 [Vavilov].
[10] In conducting a reasonableness review, a reviewing court must examine the outcome of the decision and its reasons to ensure that they are intelligible, transparent and justified based on the facts and the law that constrained the decision maker (Vavilov at paras 116, 99). The onus rests with the applicant on judicial review to show a significant flaw in the decision that justifies the Court’s intervention (Vavilov at para 100).
IV. Analysis
A. No significant error in the RAD’s assessment of the evidence
[11] The Applicant submits that the RAD’s reasons are based on false or non-existent testimony and a misunderstanding of the objective evidence from the National Documentation Package [NDP].
[12] First, the Applicant points out that the RAD misstated the Applicant’s evidence on the presence of the agents of harm in the IFA and whether he received threats while the Applicant stayed in Zarqa or Amman.
[13] The Respondent concedes that the RAD misstated the Applicant’s testimony, which was that SH does in fact have relatives who work in the IFA. It is also clear that the Applicant testified that when he stayed in Zarqa and Amman, he was sent threats online from more than one account though he was able to block all of them.
[14] Second, the Applicant provides a number of examples of the Officer inaccurately citing and relying on NDP evidence in the Decision. The Applicant argues that these examples show that the RAD failed to understand tribal culture in Jordan.
[15] With one exception, the examples cited by the Applicant deal with evidence that has no bearing on the Applicant’s claim. The only relevant exception is the Applicant’s suggestion that in focusing on honour killings which put women (and not men) at risk, the Officer overlooked evidence that men are subject to revenge crimes including for unapproved sexual activity. The Applicant notes that the evidence is that SH’s father saw communications with the Applicant that included photos of a sexual nature on SH’s phone, which puts the Applicant in danger.
[16] I agree with the Respondent that these imperfections in the RAD’s reasons are not sufficiently central or significant to the RAD’s analysis so as to render the Decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100). While such evidence goes to the motivation of SH’s family to pursue him, it does not change the critical evidence relied upon by the RAD to find that SH’s family are not motivated to pursue him in the IFA. That evidence was that for some 11 months, the Applicant was not physically followed to two locations within an hour’s travel of the Applicant’s hometown, nor had he received a direct threat from SH’s family in those locations. According to the RAD, this evidence “speaks directly to unmotivated agents of harm”
who would not be motivated to pursue him to a far more distant location. This finding was reasonably open to the RAD on the record before it and has not been undermined by the issues raised by the Applicant related to tribal culture.
B. No error in the RAD’s assessment of the second prong of the IFA analysis
[17] The Applicant also submits that the RAD overlooked his Palestinian ethnicity in assessing the reasonableness of his ability to relocate to the IFA safely. He argues that this was a significant part of his profile, which the RAD glossed over in its IFA analysis. Counsel for the Applicant specifically highlights evidence in the NDP, which demonstrates that Jordanians of Palestinian origin are discriminated against in the context of employment, especially in military, security services and the public sector.
[18] I agree with the Respondent that this evidence does not detract from the reasonableness of the Decision since the Officer’s IFA analysis was based on the availability of private sector employment in the tourist industry for which the Applicant was found to have relevant “tangible skills and work experience.”
Given that, as the RAD pointed out, the Applicant did not provide any evidence or testimony that his Palestinian ethnicity would cause a problem in the IFA, I find the Applicant’s submission does not undermine the reasonableness of the RAD’s IFA analysis.
V. Conclusion
[19] This application is dismissed as the Applicant has not shown a significant flaw in the Decision that undermines the Court’s confidence in it.
[20] The parties did not raise any question of general importance for certification, and I agree that none arise.
Email this Content