Date: 20000406
Docket: IMM-2880-99
BETWEEN:
DJAMILA HADJADJ AOUL
Applicant
AND
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board on May 17, 1999 denying the applicant refugee status.
Facts
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Algeria. She is a widow, aged 63. She has six children dispersed around the world: a son who is studying in the United States, two daughters and one son in Canada, a daughter in France and a daughter who is still living in Algeria. She claimed refugee status along with her daughter, with whom she came, alleging a well-founded fear of persecution. The applicant lived about nine months in the United States before coming to Canada.
Issue
[3] Did the Board err in law in finding that the applicant does not belong to a persecuted social group?
Analysis
Standard of review
[4] In Pushpanathan v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, Bastarache J. held that the standard of correctness should be applied to decisions rendered by the Board on points of law. Findings of fact fall within the jurisdiction of the Board. This Court cannot intervene unless the findings of fact were erroneous, made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before the Board, as provided in paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act.
[5] In Casetellanos v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1995] 2 F.C. 190, Nadon J. stated:
The characterization of the family as a social group goes to the persecution that is directly suffered by a person simply because he is a member of a certain family....
One will not, for example, be deemed to be a Convention refugee just because one has a relative who is being persecuted. There has to be a clear nexus between the persecution that is being levelled against one of the family members and that which is taking place against the others: vide Al-Busaidy v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 16 Imm. L.R. (2d) 119 (F.C.A.). The family can only be considered to be a social group in cases where there is evidence that the persecution is taking place against the family members as a social group. For example, it is possible that a claimant may be persecuted for his own political views, and not because of those of his parents, who may also be dissidents.
[6] The applicant failed to persuade the Board that her family was a social group targeted by the Fundamentalists. Moreover, the applicant conceded that she had come to Canada to protect her daughter and to flee the war.
[7] The Federal Court of Appeal laid down the test for persecution in the context of civil war in Rizkallah v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 156 N.R. 1:
| To succeed, refugee claimants must establish a link between themselves and persecution for a Convention reason. In other words, they must be targeted for persecution in some way, either personally or collectively. |
[8] In the case at bar, the applicant certainly was afraid following the incidents in her neighbourhood, but the evidence did not demonstrate that she was targeted by the attacks. The applicant failed to persuade the Board that she had a fear of persecution or that she was targeted. I am not convinced that the Board erred in arriving at this conclusion.
[9] Although the applicant's case is compassionate, this Court could not intervene. However, there is nothing to prevent the applicant's children who are settled in Canada from sponsoring her if such is their desire.
[10] The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
[11] Neither solicitor suggested any serious question to certify.
Montréal, Quebec
April 6, 2000
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL.B.
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE: DJAMILA HADJADJ AOUL |
Applicant
AND
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
Respondent
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: April 5, 2000 |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY BLAIS J.
DATED: April 6, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Eveline Fiset for the applicant
Thi My Dung Tran for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
EVELINE FISET
Montréal, Quebec for the applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the respondent
Email this Content