Date: 20060227
Docket: IMM-2591-05
Citation: 2006 FC 258
Ottawa, Ontario, February 27, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
IMAN MAROGY
and RIFAAT HANNA
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) for judicial review of a decision of a visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Damascus that the applicants were not Convention refugees, according to section 96 of IRPA, nor members of the country of asylum class under the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations, SOR/97-183.
[2] The applicants are citizens of Iraq. They, along with their daughter, have been living in Damascus, Syria since they fled Iraq on March 6, 2003.
[3] The applicants allege they fled Iraq as a result of tribal vengeance or vendetta directed against the male applicant and his family. The male applicant was the driver of a motor vehicle that struck and injured a pedestrian. The relatives of the injured pedestrian demanded money from the male applicant and threatened the male applicant and his family with kidnapping and death.
[4] On August 9, 2004, a visa officer determined that the applicants did not meet the requirements for permanent residence in Canada as Convention refugees or as members of the humanitarian designated class.
[5] On January 24, 2005, this Court allowed an application for judicial review of the decision of the visa officer and remitted it to a different immigration officer for reassessment.
[6] On reassessment, in a decision dated February 17, 2005, the new visa officer determined that the applicants were neither members of the Convention refugee abroad class, nor the Humanitarian-protected persons abroad designated class. This decision is the subject of the current application.
[7] The burden of proof in establishing a well-founded fear of persecution lies with the claimant: Canada(Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689. It is therefore the responsibility of claimants to present grounds for their application and evidence in support of their case. A review of the record does not reveal allegations of persecution based on the applicants' religion. In fact, the male applicant writes, as part of his application for refugee protection: "I fled from Iraq scaring [sic] for my life and my family because of a situation of grudge and revenge." He then proceeds to describe the car accident and the tribal justice. Nowhere does he mention his Christianity as a reason for his alleged persecution. Even the letter received from their priest, which the applicants have insisted on as important evidence, indicates that the reason the applicants left Iraq was due solely to the situation arising from the automobile accident and nowhere indicates that it was as a result of religious persecution. As such, it was reasonable for the visa officer to assign little weight to the letter.
[8] The decision of the visa officer was based on information presented by the applicants at the time of their interview and in their application materials. The visa officer found that the applicants had not satisfied the burden of establishing that they have a well-founded fear of persecution.
[9] In order to be recognized as a Convention refugee, the claimant must show that the source of the persecution is related to one of the five enumerated grounds in section 96 of IRPA, those being race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group and political opinion.
[10] Unfortunately, it is clear from the record that the applicants' reasons for leaving Iraq were as a result of vengeance sought by a tribe following an automobile accident involving the male applicant and one of the tribe members.
[11] As I stated in Marincas v. Canada(Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1254 (T.D.), the "fear of personal vengeance is not a fear of persecution." This fear is not connected to any valid ground such as to qualify a claimant as a Convention refugee.
[12] I do not find that the visa officer erred in finding that the applicants did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canadaeither as a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or as a member of the Humanitarian-protected persons abroad designated class.
[13] In the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
Email this Content