Date 20091110
Docket: IMM-5513-08
Citation: 2009 FC 1150
Montréal, Quebec, November 10,
2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
SEYEDABDOLREZA
BELADI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an application by
Seyedabdolreza Beladi (the “Applicant”) pursuant to subsection 72(1) of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”),
for judicial review of a decision, dated November 28, 2008, by a Pre-Removal
Risk Assessment Officer (the “Officer”), denying the Applicant’s application
for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds (“H & C Application”).
[2]
The
Applicant is a citizen of Iran. He came to Canada on July 23, 2000, and was
granted temporary residence. Later, he claimed refugee protection, but his
claim was denied. The Applicant filed the H & C Application on January 16,
2006.
[3]
It is not
disputed that in Iran, the Applicant was for some
time in a relationship with a woman of the Baha’i faith, but that this
relationship came to an end in 1996. It is also not disputed that the Applicant
ran a shop selling music prohibited by Iranian authorities, but that he no
longer did so after 1993.
[4]
The
Officer rejected the H & C Application, concluding that the Applicant would
suffer no unusual
and underserved or
disproportionate hardship if required to apply for a permanent resident visa
from outside Canada.
[5]
The
Officer recognised that the Applicant “[a] su s’investir et créer des liens
avec le Canada” by working, volunteering,
learning English, etc. However, she found the Applicant’s establishment in Canada was insufficient to impose
unusual or disproportionate hardship on him should he be required to leave. She
also noted that while a long stay in Canada
due to circumstances beyond an applicant’s control weighs in favour of granting
an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the length of the
Applicant’s stay in Canada was not due to such
circumstances.
[6]
As for
the risk the Applicant would be subject to if returned to Iran, the Officer
found that while the human rights situation in that country is worrying, there
was no evidence that the Applicant himself would be subject to any specific
risk. The Applicant is a man who is neither a member of a religious
minority nor any political or other organization. In the Officer’s opinion, the
length of time elapsed since the end of the Applicant’s relationship with a
Baha’i woman and his involvement in the sale of prohibited music was such that
he was unlikely to suffer particular difficulties for these reasons.
[7]
Finally,
the Officer found that while some Iranians coming back after a long stay abroad
have been questioned by the authorities, and sometimes even arrested, such
cases are rare, and typically concern individuals specifically suspected of
anti-government activity. There were no such suspicions in the Applicant’s
case.
[8]
The
Applicant mainly relies on documentary evidence to the effect that human
rights are being routinely violated in Iran, and the situation is going from bad to
worse. Things are particularly bad for the regime’s political opponents, those
whose behaviour is deemed immoral, women, and members of religious minorities
(including the Baha’i).
[9]
The
Minister submits that the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant is unlikely
to be persecuted because of a long-terminated relationship with a Baha’i woman
and even more distant sales of prohibited records was reasonably open to her. I
agree.
[10]
As the
officer noted, the Applicant terminated the relationship with the Baha’i woman
in 1996. It was not unreasonable for him to conclude that it was implausible
that the Iranian authorities would persecute him for a relationship that ended
13 years ago or because he sold prohibited music at that time. Further, the
Applicant did not provide any satisfactory explanation why generally his habits
and thinking might be considered un-Islamic or Westernised by Iranian
authorities.
[11]
Thus,
while it is not disputed that Iran is generally a repressive and
unfree country, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the officer erred
in her risk assessment.
[12]
The
Applicant further submits that the Officer erred in finding that his
degree of establishment in Canada was not such as to cause him unusual and underserved or disproportionate hardship
if returned to Iran.
[13]
The
Applicant considers that the Officer in effect “punish[ed] [him] for exhausting
all the legal channels offered to him by the Canadian law.” I do not believe
that it is what the officer did. In her reasons, the officer specifically
quoted the IP-5 manual which states that a prolonged stay in Canada is a positive factor
for granting of an exemption if the circumstances that led to this prolonged
stay in Canada are beyond the
Applicant’s control. This was not the case for the Applicant.
[14]
The
officer highlighted the factors that weigh against a finding that the Applicant
established himself in Canada: he did not take professional courses; did not
have stable jobs; and has close family members in Iran.
[15]
I
agree with the Minister that the Applicant’s submission is little more than an
attempt to reweigh the evidence.
[16]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review of the decision is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS that the application for judicial
review of the decision be dismissed.
“Danièle
Tremblay-Lamer”
Email this Content