Date: 19981027
Docket: IMM-217-98
BETWEEN:
JAMAL GHREIBI
HAGER GHREIBI
NAGIA AL-JIYACH
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROTHSTEIN J.:
[1] The applicants, who are citizens of Libya, claim to be Convention refugees on account of political opinion and religion, as opponents of the Qadhafi regime. The panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board found discrepancies between the principal applicant's personal information form (PIF) and his oral testimony, as well as implausibilities in his evidence. The applicants were found not to be Convention refugees.
[2] In this judicial review, the applicants argue that the panel's implausibility findings were perverse, capricious and patently unreasonable, that the panel ignored evidence, that there were no material discrepancies between the principal applicant's PIF and his oral testimony and that the female applicant was not allowed to present evidence.
[3] The panel found it implausible that the principal applicant would be able to leave Libya without difficulty if he were perceived to be an opponent of the Qadhafi regime and had been wanted by the authorities. There was evidence to the effect that Libya eliminated visa and customs requirements between Libya and some other Arab countries. However, this evidence does not address the question of persons who are wanted by the Libyan authorities and who are trying to leave. I accept the respondent's argument that the panel is entitled to draw inferences from the applicant's evidence. His evidence was that one cannot leave Libya without approval of the security people and that his passport was checked. If the principal applicant had been wanted by the authorities, it was not unreasonable for the panel to infer that he would not be able to leave Libya and would be arrested if he tried to do so.
[4] The panel then found it implausible that, in a country as authoritarian as Libya, the neighbour of a friend would put himself at risk to smuggle out a stranger. While the panel is on less firm footing on this implausibility finding, I cannot categorize it as perverse or capricious. While stories of a person helping a stranger are not unheard of, it was not unreasonable for the panel to find it implausible that a total stranger would put himself at risk to help the principal applicant in Libya without further explanation.
[5] The panel found it implausible that the authorities would renew the principal applicant's passport if they perceived him to be a political opponent and were trying to arrest his wife. In argument before this Court, counsel submitted that the applicant's father was only able to obtain the passport with the help of some persons he knew. The suggestion is that these persons had some ability to obtain the passport when it would normally not be given out. However, this evidence was not before the panel. The panel's implausibility findings based on the evidence before it are not unreasonable.
[6] The panel then found that if the authorities wanted to arrest the principal applicant's wife they would have interrogated her family and arrested her at her sister's house. The only reference in the evidence on this point is a general statement that the sister's husband had been harassed. There is no connection between this harassment and the authorities looking for the wife. Again, the panel's findings are not unreasonable.
[7] The panel found that if the authorities had closed down the principal applicant's father's business and confiscated his money, he would not have been able to incur expenditures for a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. The panel found the story about the father to be an embellishment to support the refugee claim. The applicant provided no rationale as to why the panel's conclusion was not reasonable.
[8] The applicant then said that he feared persecution because he grew a beard, wore traditional long clothing and went to a mosque to pray. The panel found there was no documentary evidence that these outward appearances led to persecution. The applicants point to the U.S. Country Report for 1996 that security forces monitored activities at mosques following numerous violent clashes and that some practising Muslims have shaved their beards to avoid harassment from security personnel. I accept that in some circumstances there appears to have been harassment of Muslims whose outward appearance caused the authorities to associate them with enemies of the State. However, that is far from establishing that all Muslims whose appearances are traditional are subject to persecution in Libya.
[9] The panel found numerous discrepancies between the principal applicant's PIF and his oral testimony. Before me, the applicant was not able to satisfactorily explain these discrepancies.
[10] The panel concluded that the principal applicant was not viewed as a political opponent by the Government of Libya. Some of the panel's implausibility findings are stronger, some weaker. However, there are sufficient instances of implausibilities which, when taken together with discrepancies between the applicant's PIF and oral testimony, satisfy me that the panel's assessment of the evidence was not perverse, capricious or patently unreasonable.
[11] As to the allegation that the female applicant was prevented from giving evidence, there is nothing in the record to this effect.
[12] There was some confusion as to whether certain documentary material that the applicant submitted was considered by the panel. The confusion was with respect to the listing of exhibits and not the exhibits themselves. The evidence of the Chairman of the panel was that the documentary evidence was considered. He provided an explanation for the mix-up in the listing of exhibits. The record before the panel supports the Chairman's explanation. There is no substance to this argument.
[13] Finally, in the panel's reasons, it notes the female applicant's evidence that she was teaching the Quran at a mosque but was fired because her teachings conflicted with the views of the Revolutionary Committee members. She said she was teaching an interpretation of the Quran that was contrary to the views of the Qadhafi regime. The panel found that she was not barred from finding other employment.
[14] The female applicant based her claim for refugee status on that of her husband. Her PIF made no reference to her being fired as a teacher because of her religious or political beliefs. The panel found the female applicant had her own international passport and was able to leave Libya using that passport. Yet, she did not do so for a considerable period after she was fired.
[15] What got the female applicant fired was not the practising or teaching of her religion but rather her teaching, based on her interpretation of the Quran, of a political point of view that was contrary to that of the Qadhafi regime. If anything, the female applicant's experience was based upon her political and not her religious beliefs.
[16] Other than being fired, there was no evidence before the panel of any other negative experience relative to the female applicant's teaching. She was not arrested, threatened or otherwise abused because of her teaching or her religious or political beliefs.
[17] In view of all these circumstances, I cannot say that the panel's finding that there was no more than a mere possibility that the female applicant would face persecution in Libya is perverse, capricious or patently unreasonable.
[18] This is not a case for judicial intervention. The judicial review is dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
TORONTO, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 27,1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-217-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMAL GHREIBI |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN J.
| DATED: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1998 |
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Isaac Sechere
For the Applicants
Ms. Kim Conboy
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Isaac Sechere
| Barrister & Solicitors - Notary Public |
| 141 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 1000 |
For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19981027
Docket: IMM-217-98
Between:
Applicants
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content