Date: 20101110
Docket: IMM-2776-10
Citation: 2010 FC 1122
Ottawa, Ontario, November 10, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
|
|
PIERRE BOULOS ZAZA
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr. Zaza asks the Court to set aside an officer’s decision
denying his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application. For the reasons
that follow, his application is dismissed.
[2]
The applicant is a 37 year-old
citizen of Lebanon and is a Maronite Christian. He arrived in Canada on a
visitor’s visa on July 13, 2002, in order to attend World Youth Day. His
application for an extension of his visitor’s visa was denied and on April 2,
2003, he applied for refugee protection. His refugee claim was denied and
leave to appeal to this Court was denied. Mr. Zaza then submitted a PRRA
application, which was denied on November 27, 2007. The applicant was granted
leave to judicially review this first PRRA decision but the Court’s
intervention was not required as the respondent agreed to have the matter sent
back for redetermination. Upon reconsideration by a different officer, the
PRRA application was again denied, and this application is a review of that
second PRRA decision.
[3]
Mr. Zaza alleges that he is at
risk in Lebanon on the basis that he is being targeted by Hezbollah,
a militant terrorist group powerful in Lebanon. He says he is being persecuted by Hezbollah for
being a Christian and because Hezbollah perceives him as a spy. He says that
he was twice beaten by Hezbollah agents in April of 2002. In his PRRA
application the applicant provided four letters in support of his story, each
written in 2007, a number of years after his refugee hearing.
[4]
The officer provided a lengthy
decision laying out the reasons for rejecting the application after noting that
he or she “very carefully” considered all of the evidence submitted.
[5]
The officer reviewed the Refugee
Protection Division’s (RPD) findings, including the finding that elements of
the applicant’s claim were not credible and that there was insufficient
evidence suggesting that he would be persecuted if he were returned to Lebanon. The
officer noted that the applicant did not provide any submissions in his PRRA
addressing the RPD’s credibility concerns.
[6]
The officer found that the
applicant had “basically restated” the risk he presented to the RPD, and noted
that the PRRA process is not an opportunity for the applicant to have his refugee
claim reheard, but rather is intended to assess new risk developments. The
officer acknowledged the submissions made by the applicant regarding his family
and establishment in Canada, but noted that officers are not able to consider
humanitarian and compassionate factors in PRRA applications.
[7]
The officer reviewed each of the
four letters presented by the applicant. With respect to the letter from Dr.
Elie Chanin, the officer found that although the letter was written after the
applicant’s refugee hearing, its contents would have been available prior to
the hearing. The officer noted that no argument or explanation was offered
addressing why the letter was not reasonably available at the RPD hearing, and
ultimately concluded that the letter did not constitute new evidence and thus
would not be considered.
[8]
The officer gave little weight to
letters from the applicant’s brother Joseph Zaza, his friend Michel Macdeci,
and his co-worker Joseph Abdaem for a number of reasons: the letters were vague
and unclear (the letters referred to “they” without further specification),
could have been provided at the RPD hearing, lacked detail, were not
accompanied by the envelopes they came in from Lebanon, and were not from
independent, third party sources. The officer found that the letters did not
provide sufficient objective evidence that the applicant was being
“specifically targeted” by Hezbollah or would be tortured or executed in Lebanon if he
were returned there given that the
letters
did not mention these risks or the risk that the applicant would be targeted as
a perceived spy.
[9]
The officer noted that he or she
considered documentary evidence regarding human rights in Lebanon, and that
most weight would be given to current documentary evidence. The officer noted,
among other things, that Lebanon was a parliamentary republic with diverse leadership,
including a Maronite Christian President. The officer also acknowledged
evidence that indicated Hezbollah maintained significant influence over parts
of the country, that reported instances of violence relating to Hezbollah, and
that summarized recent political developments in Lebanon.
[10]
The officer found that it was
clear from the evidence that human rights problems exist in Lebanon and
acknowledged ongoing sporadic violence. Nonetheless, the officer found that
“there is insufficient objective evidence before me to indicate that the
Hezbollah, or any other groups or individuals would be interested in pursuing
the applicant or in targeting him for harm if he were removed to Lebanon,
several years after the applicant left that country in July 2002.” The officer
also found that there was not sufficient objective evidence to support a
conclusion that the applicant was on a Hezbollah target list or that he would
be perceived as a spy if he were removed to Lebanon, or that the applicant
would be of significant or serious adverse interest to Hezbollah.
[11]
The applicant
challenges the officer’s rejection of the letters he provided, alleging that
the officer “engaged in a series of negative inferences, took into account
irrelevant considerations in assessing the letters, and demanded corroborative
evidence.” The applicant submits that there is no requirement that letters of
support come only from independent sources, and relies on the decision in Mata
Diaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 319,
where Justice O’Keefe accepted letters from family members as evidence and
found, at para. 37, that:
… it would
seem to me that any letter written to support the applicant’s claim would be,
by the Board’s reasoning, self-serving. This cannot be the case. An applicant
has to be able to establish their case.
[12]
I accept
the submissions of the respondent. The
PRRA application is based on the same risks that formed the basis of the
applicant’s refugee claim. The only “new” evidence provided by the applicant
was the four letters. The officer found that the letters could have and should
have been provided at the time of the RPD hearing. The mere fact that the
evidence is dated after the RPD decision does not mean that the evidence is
“new” within the meaning of s. 113(a) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. The officer’s finding that three of the
letters did not come from independent sources was merely an additional factor
in his or her assessment of the evidence and is insufficient to undermine the
entire decision.
[13]
The applicant further submits that
the officer applied the wrong legal test and failed to ask whether the Lebanese
state can provide effective protection to people targeted by Hezbollah. The
applicant makes various submissions regarding the inability of the Lebanese
government to provide state protection from Hezbollah and the officer’s
“misapprehension” of the relevant legal test for state protection.
[14]
The officer very
clearly found that there was not sufficient evidence to support a conclusion
that Hezbollah would be interested in the applicant. The issue of state
protection was not canvassed by the officer, and indeed the officer
acknowledged that Hezbollah still retained significant influence over parts of
the country and that the government had failed to disarm Hezbollah. The
officer reached the same conclusion as the RPD: that the applicant was not
being pursued by Hezbollah. As a consequence, the question of state protection
was irrelevant.
[15]
Contrary to the
applicant’s submissions, the officer did not conclude that state protection
would be available because of Lebanon’s status as a parliamentary republic
with a diverse leadership. This specific finding was one part of the officer’s
broader analysis of country conditions in Lebanon. There was no error in the officer’s
decision.
[16]
There is nothing
confusing or inadequate about the officer’s reasons. The officer surveyed the
documentation on country conditions in Lebanon and concluded that human rights
problems existed and that Hezbollah maintained influence in Lebanon. These findings are not inconsistent with the officer’s
determination that Hezbollah was not pursuing the applicant. Absent a finding
that the applicant was being pursued, as he alleged, there was no risk to the
applicant in returning to Lebanon.
[17]
This
application is dismissed.
[18]
Neither
party proposed a question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS
that:
1. This
application is dismissed; and
2. No
question is certified.
“Russel
W. Zinn”
Email this Content