Date: 20090722
Docket: IMM-169-09
Citation: 2009 FC 747
Montréal, Quebec, July 22, 2009
PRESENT:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
MOKHTAR BARAT
FADILA AIT GRIME BARAT
SARA BARAT
MOHAMED LAMINE BARAT
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, of a decision of the Refugee
Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the panel) dated
December 17, 2008, that the applicants are not Convention refugees or persons
in need of protection.
Issue
[2]
Did the
panel err in concluding that the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of
state protection?
[3]
For the
following reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[4]
The
principal applicant, Mokhtar Barat (applicant), his wife Fadila Ait Grine
Barat, their minor daughter Sara Barat and their adult son Mohamed Lamine
Barat, all citizens of Algeria, claim refugee protection on the ground that
they fear persecution by reason of their membership in a particular social
group and the political opinions ascribed to them.
[5]
Beginning
in 2004, the applicant and his family were threatened by terrorists who wanted
to kill them because the applicant had been a member of the Ministry of Defence.
Impugned
Decision
[6]
The panel asked the
applicant to specify whether he had informed the Algerian authorities of the
threats against him and his family. He replied that he went to the police station at Bordj-El-Bahri
in January 2005 to make an oral complaint and the police officers told him to
be careful but did not provide any other protection. The applicant explained
that in March 2005, after receiving threatening anonymous telephone calls, he went
to the police station again, but that this time the police officers refused to
take his complaint. Accompanied by his wife, he also went to the police
station on another occasion in March 2005, but they were given the same
response.
[7]
Taking
into account the relevant case law, the documentary evidence as a whole and the
personal situation of the applicant, who worked for the Ministry of Defence for
several years, the panel considered that the applicant had not overturned the
presumption that his country could protect him and his family.
Analysis
Standard
of Review
[8]
The standard of
review applicable here is that of reasonableness (Chagoya v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 721, [2008] F.C.J. No. 908 (QL),
at paragraph 3; Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9,
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at paragraphs 55, 57, 62 and 64).
[9]
According to the
Supreme Court of Canada, the elements to be considered are the justification
for the decision, its transparency and its intelligibility. The decision
must also be defensible in respect of the facts and law (Dunsmuir, at
paragraph 47).
[10]
For the application
for judicial review to be allowed, the applicants must show that it was unreasonable
for the panel to conclude that Algeria could protect them.
[11]
The facts
of this case show that the police authorities visited the applicant following
the events he allegedly experienced in November 2005, when individuals were
waiting for the applicant and his son in a car parked near their home. When they noticed the presence of the
police, those individuals left. In its decision, the panel notes that the
applicants did not inform the police of persistent threats in June 2006.
[12]
The Court finds that
it was not unreasonable in these circumstances for the panel to conclude that
the applicants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Algeria was
unable to protect them (Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2008 FCA 94, 377 N.R. 69).
[13]
The
decision is justified and intelligible and is defensible in respect of the
facts and law.
[14]
No
question was proposed for certification and none arises from this case.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS that the
application for judicial review be dismissed. No question is certified.
“Michel Beaudry”
Certified
true translation
Brian
McCordick, Translator
Email this Content