Date: 20040108
Docket: IMM-4952-03
Citation: 2004 FC 16
Toronto, Ontario, January 8th, 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
BETWEEN:
GEORGES MAKHTAR, ZAKIE KALOUR,
and LOUISA MAKHTAR,
by her Litigation Guardian ZAKIE KALOUR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") dated May 29, 2003 which determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection because there is no objective basis for their fear of persecution.
THE FACTS
[2] The applicants are all citizens of Syria. The principal applicant Georges Makhtar is 37 years old and claims a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of Syrian authorities and extreme Islamists because he is a Christian, and a Deacon who preaches Christianity. He also claims to be a person in danger of being tortured, at risk of losing his life, or being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in Syria. His wife, Zakie Kalour, and daughter, Louisa Makhtar, base their claims on his claim.
[3] The principal applicant ("applicant") came to Canada in March 1995 and remained until he was deported in April 2001. He returned to Canada to join his wife and daughter who had arrived on December 9, 2001. A month later they claimed asylum based on the following:
(i) in 1992, the applicant was assaulted at a coffee shop while discussing Christianity with a Muslim who was interested in converting;
(ii) in 1995 the applicant's cousin discovered an "X" written on the outer door of the applicant's home together with a life threatening note;
(iii) on April 27, 2001 three Muslim men, who had previously threatened the applicant and demanded that he leave Syria, attacked him on his way home from church; and,
(iv) on August 15, 2001 two Muslim men attacked the applicant's wife and daughter; they said their attack was a warning against infidels and the applicant in particular.
[4] In rejecting the applicant's claims the Board states at page 3 of its reasons:
The determinative issue is whether these claims are objectively well-founded. The panel finds that they are not. The panel finds that there is no objective documentation that demonstrates that Christians face persecution in Syria. The panel provided counsel with an opportunity to provide post-hearing documentation supplemental to the disclosed documentation that would support the allegations of Christian persecution in Syria; however, she was unable to produce anything that served to advance the claims of the claimants. Her documentation did report that the Syrian government had been involved in the oppression of Christians in Lebanon, however, it is the panel's view that the complex nature of Lebanese politics and the Christians' role in that polity have no counterpart or similarities to conditions in Syria. Accordingly, the panel finds that those documents are of little value to the claimants.
[5] The Board acknowledged documents indicating that Syria has a poor human rights record and sponsors Islamic terrorism, but rejected the suggestion that the documents form an objective basis for the applicant's fears. At pages 4 - 6 of its reasons the Board states:
In the absence of any other documentation, counsel's suggested analytical approach may have been helpful; however, the documents filed by both the RPO and the claimants are not silent on the issue.
The former editor of Arabies and Jeune Afrique magazines stated in July 2000:
Christians in Syria enjoy freedom of religion and are well protected by the regime. They maintain very good relations with the authorities and do not face discrimination in employment; many of them hold high-ranking positions in the military and the government.
The Middle East Council of Churches, a Christian organization based in Cyprus with offices in several countries in the Middle East that conducts studies on human rights, justice and interreligious dialogue, stated that:
Christians in Syria are free to practice their religion openly. As is the case during Muslim feasts, so too during Christian festivals religious services are broadcast on Syrian TV. These include sermons of the three patriarchs and the archbishops resident in the capital, as well as other bishops and leading clergy of the churches throughout the country.
[emphasis added]
It is reported in the International Religious Freedom Report, US Department of State, 2002:
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice.
...
Relations among the various religious communities generally are amicable, and there is little evidence of social discrimination or violence against religious minorities.
...
[emphasis added]
The Associated Press in February 2000 quoted the Roman Catholic Archbishop Ibrahim Neima of Homs (north of Damascus and close to the Lebanese border) as saying that:
Christians serve in senior government posts, including the Cabinet. .... there is no religious persecution [in Syria].
[6] The Board rejected the testimony of two witnesses to the alleged assaults on the applicant who " opined that Christians face persecution in Syria". The Board preferred the objective reports of the universally respected human rights organizations disclosed in the documentation which state that Christians can freely practice their religion in Syria.
[7] The sole issue is whether the Board erred when it determined that there was no objective evidence of persecution with respect to a Christian like the applicant who is a preacher.
Applicant's Position
[8] The applicant submits that a Tribunal errs when it uses the lack of corroborating evidence as a basis to disbelieve an applicant's allegations, unless there are valid reasons to doubt the truthfulness. The applicant contends that no such reasons were identified. The applicant submits that a claimant can provide viva voce evidence on country conditions to provide an objective basis for the claim of a Christian like the applicant who preaches.
Respondent's Position
[9] The respondent submits that even in the absence of a negative credibility finding, the Board had an obligation to assess whether an objective basis existed for the applicant's subjective fear. The respondent contends that it is possible for the applicant's testimony to be found credible, but still lack an objective basis to support his fear.
ANALYSIS
[10] The fact that the applicants have been able to show a subjective fear of persecution is not sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at para. 47 held that the following bipartite test must be met, as per La Forest J.:
More generally, what exactly must a claimant do to establish fear of persecution? As has been alluded to above, the test is bipartite: (1) the claimant must subjectively fear persecution; and (2) this fear must be well-founded in an objective sense. This test was articulated and applied by Heald J.A. in Rajudeen, supra, at p. 134:
The subjective component relates to the existence of the fear of persecution in the mind of the refugee. The objective component requires that the refugee's fear be evaluated objectively to determine if there is a valid basis for that fear.
[11] I find that the Board provided reasons why it preferred the documentary evidence over the applicant's evidence. The documentary evidence shows that Christians in Syria do not suffer persecution and that the state protects religious minorities. At the conclusion of the hearing the applicant was provided with the opportunity to provide documentation supporting his claim of an objective fear for Christians in his position, but was unable to do so. The only documentation he was able to provide pertained to conditions in Lebanon and not in Syria. Therefore the Board's conclusion that there was no objective basis for his claim meets the test set out in Ward.
[12] The respondent submits that the applicant's PIF makes no mention that he ever contacted the police or the authorities to assist him with his alleged difficulties. This fact does not assist the applicant in claiming that the state is unable or unwilling to protect him.
[13] The applicant relies on the 2002 U.S. Department of State Report on Religious Freedom in Syria ("DOS Report") which states that "the Government placed some limits on freedom of religion", that "relations among the various religious communities generally are amicable", but also reports "periodic frictions between religious faiths". This evidence is insufficient to constitute persecution.
[14] The fact that the applicant was assaulted by extremists in 1992 and 2001 for preaching Christianity to Muslims does not constitute an objective basis for fear of persecution. The objective evidence in Syria is that the applicant as a Deacon can generally practice and preach Christianity to Christians without fear of persecution from other religions or the government. The applicant is not proselytizing, like Jehovah's Witnesses who were officially banned but have continued to practice their faith privately in Syria as stated in the DOS Report.
[15] For these reasons, the Board's decision is reasonable, and this application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[16] The parties and the Court agree that this application does not raise a serious question of general importance for certification.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Michael A. Kelen"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4952-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: GEORGE MAKHTAR, ZAKIE KALOUR,
and LOUISA MAKHTAR, by her Litigation Guardian ZAKIE KALOUR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 7, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: KELEN J.
DATED: JANUARY 8, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Krassina Kostadinov For the Applicant
Mary Mathews For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Waldman & Associates
Toronto, Ontario For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20040108
Docket: IMM-4952-03
BETWEEN:
GEORGE MAKHTAR, ZAKIE KALOUR,
and LOUISA MAKHTAR, by her Litigation Guardian ZAKIE KALOUR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content