Docket: IMM-7576-23
Citation: 2024 FC 2050
Ottawa, Ontario, December 17, 2024
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
BETWEEN: |
BASSEL NASRALLAH |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Bassel Nasrallah, applied for refugee protection in Canada, arguing that he was at risk of persecution and serious harm in Lebanon because of his atheist beliefs and his support of his son who is gay. Mr. Nasrallah also claimed that he would face serious harm from his ex-wife and her family if he attempted to obtain his farmland back. The Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”
) refused his claim, finding there was no objective basis that he would face risk on these grounds in Lebanon. The Refugee Appeal Division (“RAD”
) dismissed his appeal and confirmed the RPD’s decision on the same grounds. Mr. Nasrallah challenges the RAD’s decision on judicial review. No procedural issues were raised and therefore I will review the merits of the RAD decision on a reasonableness standard (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 12-13, 84).
[2] Mr. Nasrallah’s challenge to the RAD decision is difficult to follow. There are a number of general assertions made that are not tied to the RAD decision in question. For example, Mr. Nasrallah points to general principles to follow when making credibility findings. However, the RAD made no credibility findings about Mr. Nasrallah’s allegations. Mr. Nasrallah further claims that the RAD did not conduct an analysis pursuant to section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The RAD did conduct a section 97 analysis with respect to Mr. Nasrallah’s risk from his ex-wife’s family on account of the farmland, finding that if he did not attempt to regain the farmland there was no allegation of risk. With respect to his other allegations, given that the RAD already found there was no objective basis to find that he would face persecution on these grounds, I cannot understand how in these circumstances a further section 97 analysis, which is determined on a balance of probabilities, would be of any assistance. The remainder of the submissions are really an invitation for the Court to reweigh the evidence, contrary to this Court’s role. Mr. Nasrallah does not point to any specific deficiencies in the way the RAD evaluated the evidence before it.
[3] The Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov explained that the “burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable”
and that a decision can only be set aside where the reviewing court is “satisfied that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency”
(Vavilov at para 100). The Applicant’s arguments do not really engage with the RAD’s reasons or articulate a basis for finding them unreasonable. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
Email this Content