Date: 20190313

Docket: IMM-2806-18

Citation: 2019 FC 303

Ottawa, Ontario, March 13, 2019

PRESENT:  The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell

JUDGMENT WITH REASONS

I.  Nature of the Matter

[1]  The Applicant [Ms. Charafeddine] seeks judicial review, pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA], from a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [RPD], rendered on May 30, 2018 [Decision]. The RPD concluded Ms. Charafeddine is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. It concluded she faced no objective and reasonable risk of persecution. For the reasons set out herein, I dismiss the application for judicial review.

II.  Summary of the Facts

[2]  Ms. Charafeddine is a 50-year-old citizen of Lebanon. She alleges threats and mistreatment by two (2) of her former lovers in Lebanon. The most serious allegation, a death threat, was communicated to her brother in Lebanon in February 2012 while Ms. Charafeddine was residing in Canada.

[3]  In 2010, while working at a coffee shop in Beirut, Ms. Charafeddine met and became romantically involved with Borhan Hamada. She often frequented Mr. Hamada’s apartment in Beirut. Four (4) months after starting her relationship with Mr. Hamada, Ms. Charafeddine learned he was married and had children. When she ended the relationship, Mr. Hamada was not pleased. He apparently insulted, threatened and assaulted her. Ms. Charafeddine left Mr. Hamada’s apartment and quit her job in order that Mr. Hamada could not locate her.

[4]  In October 2010, three (3) months after leaving Mr. Hamada, Ms. Charafeddine found a new job, where she met Mr. Fayez Msage. Ms. Charafeddine believed Mr. Msage could protect her from Mr. Hamada’s threats given his size, strength and strong personality. In February 2011, after seeing Ms. Charafeddine with Mr. Msage, Mr. Hamada started, once again, to threaten Ms. Charafeddine. She again quit her job. She stayed at home until April 2011 when she commenced employment at yet another location.

[5]  In August 2011, Ms. Charafeddine learned, through a co-worker, that Mr. Msage had relationships with other women and that he bought and sold stolen cars. When Ms. Charafeddine confronted Mr. Msage about his business operations, he informed her it was a lucrative business. Ms. Charafeddine claims she did not want to be with such a person and that she feared Mr. Msage would threaten her as did Mr. Hamada.  She remained in the relationship with Mr. Msage while she communicated with her mother in Canada and made an application for a Visitor Visa to come to Canada. On October 18, 2011, she received her Visitor Visa. On December 2, 2011, she left Lebanon for Canada. She did not immediately make an application for asylum.

[6]   Ms. Charafeddine did not contact police authorities in Lebanon regarding either Mr. Hamada or Mr. Msage.

[7]  Ms. Charafeddine claims that when Mr. Msage learned she was in Canada, he started “badmouthing” her.  He brother, who lives in Lebanon, learned of this and confronted Mr. Msage. In February 2012, Ms. Charafeddine’s brother and Mr. Msage had a physical altercation, initiated by Ms. Charafeddine’s brother. As a result of the altercation, her brother’s arm was broken and Mr. Msage allegedly threatened to kill Ms. Charafeddine in the event she returns to Lebanon. The fight between her brother and Mr. Msage, including Mr. Msage’s threat to kill her if she returned to Lebanon, prompted Ms. Charafeddine to file a claim for refugee protection in Canada. Neither Ms. Charafeddine, nor her brother, filed a complaint with the police regarding the fight or the apparent death threat of February 2012.

[8]  The hearing by the RPD into the claim for asylum took place on May 24, 2018.  In a decision dated May 30, 2018, the RPD rejected the claim. That refusal is the subject of the within application for judicial review.

III.  Decision Under Review

[9]  The determinative issue for the RPD was the credibility of the threats. The RPD found Ms. Charafeddine lacking credibility on the issue of subjective fear for a number of reasons, namely: (1) the length of the relationships with Mr. Msage and Mr. Hamada were too short to be considered serious; (2) the lack of evidence to demonstrate that both Mr. Msage and Mr. Hamada still have an ongoing interest in the Applicant following the termination of those relationships more than six (6) years ago; (3) other than the evidence of the fight between Ms. Charafeddine’s brother and Mr. Msage, instigated by the brother, Ms. Charafeddine provided no evidence  to support her contention that either man remains interested in her or her whereabouts; (4) the lack of a police report at any time. In addition, the RPD concluded Ms. Charaffedine failed to establish that she faces an objective and reasonable risk of persecution at the hand of either Mr. Hamada or Mr. Msage. In the RPD’s view, neither the subjective, nor the objective elements required to establish grounds under either s. 96 or s. 97 were met. The RPD relied upon Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 FC 680.

IV.  Relevant Provisions

[10]  The relevant provisions of the IRPA are sections 96 and 97. These provisions are set out in full in the Appendix attached to these Reasons.

V.  Analysis

[11]  Ms. Charafeddine contends the interpretation of IRPA by the RPD should be assessed on the correctness standard. The Respondent contends reasonableness is the appropriate standard of review on all questions, citing, inter alia, Cerra Gomez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1233, at para. 14. I agree with the Respondent’s contention. The interpretation of the IRPA involves the interpretation of the RPD’s home statute. All other questions constitute questions of mixed fact and law. Both attract a reasonableness standard of review (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paras. 51, 53, 54, 164) [Dunsmuir]. Given that all questions at issue attract the reasonableness standard, it is well established that this Court must show deference to the RPD’s decision, while determining whether there was justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process and ensuring that the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law (Dunsmuir at para 47).

[12]  Even if one accepts that Ms. Charafeddine established a subjective fear of Mr. Msage, the RPD concluded she failed to establish that she faces an objective and reasonable risk of persecution by him. Given the circumstances surrounding Mr. Msage’s threat, including the conduct of Ms. Charaffedine’s brother and the lack of a police report, I am of the view that such a conclusion meets the test of reasonableness.

[13]  Ms. Charafeddine appears to acknowledge that given the circumstances surrounding the threat communicated to her brother, the threat was not serious. However, she says that a threat need not be serious in order to establish a serious possibility of persecution. I disagree. If the threat was not serious, it follows there is no danger for the Applicant (Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 1, at para. 36, 329 NR 346; Mohebbi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 182, at paras. 3-4).

VI.  Conclusion

[14]  For the foregoing reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for the Federal Court of Appeal, therefore no question is certified.

JUDGMENT in IMM-2806-18

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed, and no question is certified for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal.

“B. Richard Bell”

ANNEX

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: