Date: 20080221
Docket: IMM-3306-07
Citation:
2008 FC 230
Ottawa, Ontario,
February 21, 2008
Present:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Simon Noël
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED
HATTOU
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review under section 72 of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) of a decision by Mr. Michel
Venne, dated July 25, 2007, rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD),
concluding that Mr. Mohammed Hattou (the applicant) is neither a refugee nor a
person in need of protection because there is an internal flight alternative
(IFA) available to him in Algiers.
I.
Issue
[2]
The only
issue before the Court is whether the RPD erred in fact or in law by finding
that there was an internal flight alternative.
II. Background
[3]
The
applicant was born in Mostaganem in Algeria on February 1, 1976. He completed
all his studies in his hometown and became a professional actor.
[4]
Although
he worked from October 1999 to May 2005 as an office clerk for the Ouazani
Ghali shipping agency in Mostaganem, the applicant was also an actor. From
January 2, 1998, to August 31, 2005, he worked as an actor at the Ibn Sina
theatre in Oran; that experience caused him to fear the Salafist Group for Call
and Combat (GSPC).
[5]
The
applicant alleges that on April 14, 2005, he was in a play by Medjehri Missoum
called Shams El Hak, a biting criticism of the devastating effect that
armed Islamist groups (AIG) and the GSPC have had on Algerian society. He
played the role of Omar, a young boy from a poor family, whose brother was
indoctrinated by terrorist groups and who was shot and killed by security
forces. In his role, the applicant deplored the fact that his family had been
torn apart and severely criticized the terrorists who wreaked havoc on the
lives of innocent people throughout the country beginning in the 1990’s.
[6]
As the
applicant was leaving the Palais de la Culture on April 14, 2005, he was
stopped by three individuals who accused him of criticizing the GSPC, which, in
their eyes, was engaged in a noble struggle against tyranny. They said that the
applicant deserved to be killed for his comments. These three individuals beat
him and were about to cut his throat when a car passed by. Believing that the
police had arrived, his three assailants fled. The driver of the car stopped to
help the applicant and drove him to the police station. The police took his
statement and kept him overnight because they feared for his life.
[7]
The next
day, the applicant returned to his home in Mostaganem. He telephoned the
theatre director and told him of the attack the night before so that the
director could inform the other actors of the danger. He also asked the
director to help him flee the country. The director registered him as part of
the delegation of actors attending an international amateur theatre festival in
Québec, Canada. Before he left in 2005, the applicant lived in hiding for four
months at his aunt’s home in Algiers.
[8]
The
applicant arrived on a Canadian visa with his Algerian actor colleagues on
September 9, 2005, in Québec. He took part in the festival and
claimed refugee protection on September 14, 2005.
[9]
At the
first hearing on March 6, 2007, the RPD stated that the GSPC was [translation] “dying” and that it only existed in the
outlying regions of the country, not in the cities such as the capital,
Algiers; the applicant therefore had an IFA. The record indicated that he spent
four months with his aunt in that city before coming to Canada.
[11]
The second
hearing took place on June 5, 2007, and dealt with the documents filed by the
applicant (documents D1-D22). There were numerous newspaper articles from, inter
alia, Le Monde, Reporters Without Borders and the
largest Algerian dailies. This new evidence showed indisputably that the GSPC
was present in Algiers and was responsible for terrorist attacks in that city
and surrounding areas between 2005 and 2007. Following the hearing, the RPD
determined that the GSPC activities in Algiers targeted military authorities,
police stations and foreigners. The RPD noted that only one civilian had been
killed during this period. Accordingly, the applicant would not be at risk if
he returned to Algiers. Therefore, there was an internal flight alternative
available to him.
III. Analysis
[12]
The
Federal Courts have repeatedly held that the appropriate standard of review for
purely factual issues such as an internal flight alternative is patent
unreasonableness (see Sivasamboo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [1995] 1 F.C. 741; Chorny v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1263; Kumar v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 601, [2004] F.C.J. No.
731 (QL); Camargo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2006 FC 472, [2006] F.C.J. No. 601 (QL); Shimokawa v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 445, [2006] F.C.J. No. 555 (QL); Bhandal
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 426, [2006]
F.C.J. No. 527 (QL) and Ako v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [2006] F.C.J. No. 836, 2006 FC 647).
[13]
The
applicant submits that by agreeing that documents could be filed to refute the
statement that the GSPC movement was limited to a marginal presence in the
country, the RPD created an expectation that, if the documentation indicated
the contrary, there would be no internal flight alternative and accordingly,
his application would be accepted.
[14]
After
reviewing the transcript of the hearing, the Court notes that the RPD invited
the applicant to submit new documentation and said that it would be discussed
at a subsequent hearing. The hearing was held, and the applicant and his lawyer
had the opportunity to make their submissions. At no time did the RPD commit to
allowing the application if the evidence indicated that the GSPC was active in
the cities including Algiers. The RPD created no expectation that the
application would be allowed. The Court notes that, at the second hearing, the
RPD addressed the fact that civilians were not targeted, and the applicant gave
his opinion on this issue.
[15]
Taking
into account the entire situation, and in particular, the new documentation
that was submitted, did the RPD consider it, and is that reflected in the
decision?
[16]
Relying on
a document (T-1) indicating that the situation in large cities like Algiers
and Constantine was calm, the RPD noted, based on the new
documentation, that the GSPC was active in a number of places in Algeria and
that there had been attacks in a suburb of Algiers. The RPD observed that there
had been one attack against a civilian in October 2006.
[17]
The RPD
added that the GSPC was still launching attacks in Algeria, primarily to the
south and east of Algiers, but that these attacks targeted symbols (government
buildings, police officers, the military, police stations . . . ), not
civilians.
[18]
This
analysis was the basis for the RPD’s finding that an internal flight
alternative was available.
[19]
The Court
notes that the RPD recognized the importance of the GSPC’s activities, contrary
to its initial opinion, but in order to make this finding, the RPD thoroughly
analyzed the new documentation. Based on this information, the RPD was of the
view that the GSPC was targeting symbols, not civilians.
[20]
After
reviewing the RPD’s decision and the transcript of the two days of hearings,
the Court has no reason to intervene.
[21]
The Court
invited the parties to submit questions for certification, but they did not do
so.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING:
- The
application for judicial review is dismissed;
- There
is no question to be certified.
“Simon Noël”
Certified true
translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
Email this Content