Date: 20250306

Docket: IMM-350-24

Citation: 2025 FC 418

Toronto, Ontario, March 06, 2025

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicants seek judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing their appeal. They are citizens of Bangladesh who claim to fear persecution because of their imputed political belief. The Principal Applicant, Md Al Amin Quraishi, was involved in a land dispute which he says is related to the fact that his family was known to support Bangladesh’s pro-liberation movement. The RAD found the evidence did not support the Applicants’ claim.

[2] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. The Applicants have not demonstrated that the RAD’s decision is unreasonable.

I. Background

[3] The Applicants are Md Al Amin Quraishi (the “PA”), his wife Nasima Amin Khan, and their son, Nazeed Numair (together, the “Associate Applicants”). They are citizens of Bangladesh.

[4] The Applicants allege that they are at risk from a man named Bhola Mian (“BM”), who owns land bordering a parcel of land co-owned by the PA and his siblings in Bangladesh. The Applicants allege that BM is well-known for his connection to “goons” in the neighbourhood where the land is located and he has links to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the extremist political party Jamaat e-Islami (“JeI”).

[5] The Applicants alleged that BM began to encroach upon the land in 2006 by illegally erecting buildings on the property. The PA and his siblings brought a legal proceeding against BM in 2021, seeking a court order forcing him to remove the buildings. The Applicants allege that BM and his associates, or “goons,” repeatedly threatened to harm them if the PA did not withdraw the legal proceeding. The Applicants allege that the threats from BM are related to the PA’s imputed political opinion as the son of pro-liberation and women’s rights activists.

[6] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the Applicants’ claim after finding that the PA could withdraw from the legal proceeding or give up his ownership interest in the land to eliminate the risk to him and the Associate Applicants. In reaching this conclusion, the RPD found that the dispute between BM and the Applicants was a private property dispute. The RPD accepted that BM had connections to the JeI and other extremist groups, however, the evidence did not establish that the Applicants were being targeted for any politically-motivated reasons.

[7] The RAD dismissed the Applicants’ appeal. It agreed with the RPD that the Applicants had not established that they were targeted due to an imputed political opinion, but rather because of an ongoing property dispute with BM. The RAD noted that claims involving revenge, or a personal vendetta lack the required nexus to a Convention ground for refugee protection.

[8] The RAD also found that the RPD did not err in its assessment of two letters the Applicants provided to the RPD, which it deemed were insufficient to establish that the PA was targeted based on his imputed political opinion. The RAD found that a genuine belief that the PA was being targeted due to an imputed political opinion does not make it true.

[9] In terms of the Associate Applicants, the RAD acknowledged that they are members of a particular social group given that they are the immediate family of the PA. With regards to the PA’s wife (“Mrs. Khan”) the RAD agreed that part of the reason she was at risk is due to her gender. The RAD found that BM’s associates touched her inappropriately when they accosted her and her son on the street and told her to have the PA withdraw the legal proceeding.

[10] The RAD indicated that Mrs. Khan’s claim was inextricably linked to her husband’s claim and that the risk to her is based on her association with her husband. Referring to the RPD hearing transcript, the RAD confirmed that Mrs. Khan did not provide any other reasons why she believes she would be at risk in Bangladesh, aside from her association with the PA.

[11] The RAD concluded that the PA can withdraw his involvement in the legal proceeding and his interest in the land to eliminate the risk of persecution, and that there was insufficient evidence of an ongoing risk to the Applicants for any other reason. Based on this analysis, the RAD dismissed the Applicants’ appeal.

[12] The Applicants seek judicial review of the RAD decision.

II. Issues and Standard of Review

[13] The Applicant raises two issues with the RAD decision:

1. The RAD unreasonably concluded that the Applicants’ claim did not have a nexus to a Convention ground; and

2. The RAD unreasonably found that the Applicants could avoid a risk of persecution if the PA divested his interest in the property.

[14] As explained below, these two issues merge into one another, because the PA’s claim that the risks would continue even if he sold his interest in the property or withdrew from the legal claim against BM were intimately related to his belief that he was targeted because of his imputed political belief. I will therefore discuss the two issues together.

[15] Both issues are assessed under the framework for reasonableness review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov], and confirmed in Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21.

[16] In summary, under the Vavilov framework, a reviewing court is to review the reasons given by the administrative decision maker and determine whether the decision is based on an internally coherent chain of reasoning and is justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints (Vavilov at para 85). The onus is on the Applicants to demonstrate that “any shortcomings or flaws … are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” (Vavilov at para 100). Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker (Vavilov at para 125).

III. Analysis

[17] The Applicants submit that the RAD erred in failing to consider the PA’s profile. His father fought for the liberation of Bangladesh, and his mother was a women’s rights activist who supported freedom fighters after the war. This was well-known in the area and, according to the Applicants, should have been given more emphasis by the RAD in its analysis of the land dispute.

[18] During his testimony before the RPD, the PA repeatedly stated that he believed that the land dispute was motivated by BM’s opposition to the liberation movement. The evidence showed that BM was linked to JeI, an organization that was known to use violence towards persons linked to the liberation movement. The PA indicated that he believed that he would be at risk even if he sold his interest in the land, as BM was targeting him because he is from a pro-liberation family. In turn, the Associate Applicants were at risk because of their association with him. In light of this, the RPD and RAD had an obligation to consider the Applicants’ refugee claim in light of their profile.

[19] I am not persuaded that the RAD failed to appreciate the wider political context in Bangladesh, or the PA’s family’s profile as supporters of the liberation movement. The RAD acknowledged the PA’s profile, but found that the evidence did not substantiate the PA’s belief that BM was targeting him because of his imputed political opinion. The RAD reasonably found that claims involving revenge or a personal vendetta are not linked to a Convention ground for protection.

[20] In analyzing this aspect of the claim, the RAD acknowledged the PA’s testimony that he believed that his imputed political opinion was one of the sources of the threats because Islamic fundamentalist groups target those who are pro-liberation. However, the RAD went on to find that the PA’s genuinely held belief did not make it true. In this case, the RAD determined that the evidence did not substantiate the PA’s belief.

[21] The RAD examined the PA’s testimony, as well as the letters he submitted to corroborate his claim. The RAD found that the letter from the PA’s brother repeated the belief that the PA was targeted because their father was a martyr of the liberation war but offered no other evidence to support this claim. Similarly, the letter from a neighbour simply repeated rumours that BM was using his influence in the local area to target the PA and his family as enemies of Islam. The letter did not provide any details to explain the basis for this statement beyond referring to rumours that the neighbour had heard. The RAD found this evidence was insufficient to establish that the PA was targeted based on imputed political opinion.

[22] In addition, the RAD noted that the PA’s siblings, who were co-owners of the disputed land, continued to reside in the area, and had not been targeted although they were also from a family that was known to support the liberation movement. Moreover, the evidence did not establish that the goons who threatened the PA and his family were tied to Islamic fundamentalism or the JeI.

[23] The RAD found that the threats against the PA and his family were related to a land dispute and therefore there was no nexus to a Convention ground. This finding is based on a careful examination of the evidence in light of the legal framework that applies to this case. The Applicants have not demonstrated that this finding is unreasonable.

[24] Insofar as the PA testified that the risks to himself and his family would continue even if he sold his interest in the disputed land, or he withdrew from the legal dispute, the RAD’s findings flowed from its conclusions regarding nexus. The RAD relied on the long line of cases that have found that if a person can abandon an asset or possession to eliminate a risk of harm it is not unreasonable to expect them to do so, unless there are extenuating circumstances.

[25] In this case, the Applicants acknowledge that they do not rely on the property for their livelihoods. The PA’s testimony makes it clear that he viewed the property dispute as a matter of family honour and reputation in the region, and felt that it would be wrong to give up the land to nefarious actors (BM and his associates). The Applicant submits that his situation is similar to the facts in Gomez Guzman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 152 [Gomez Guzman], where this Court found that it was unreasonable to expect the applicant to give up his claim for land restitution in Colombia, given the wider political context for the issue of reclaiming land seized by military or para-military forces in that country.

[26] I find the Gomez Guzman case to be distinguishable on its facts. In this case, the RAD found that the threats to the Applicants were simply related to a land dispute and that the evidence did not substantiate the PA’s belief that he was being persecuted because of his imputed political opinion. There is no comparison with the fight for land restitution in Colombia.

[27] The RAD reasonably concluded that giving up the land would not deprive the Applicants of a core human right. Although the Applicants submit that the RAD failed to consider the wider political context of property disputes in Bangladesh, I am not persuaded that the RAD erred on this point.

[28] The Applicants tried to connect the property dispute to a wider political and social context, but the RAD reasonably found that the evidence did not establish any such link. It is not the role of a reviewing court to re-weigh the evidence, absent exceptional circumstances which do not exist here. I am not persuaded that the RAD’s analysis on this question is unreasonable.

[29] Finally, for the sake of completeness, I would add that the RAD’s analysis of Mrs. Khan’s claim of gender-based persecution is also reasonable. The RAD examined the evidence put forward by Mrs. Khan, noting that she was sexually assaulted by BM’s goons when they threatened her and her son, but her evidence was that this was tied to the land dispute. Mrs. Khan testified that she had no other fears of persecution in Bangladesh. In light of this, the RAD’s finding on the gender claim is reasonable.

IV. Conclusion

[30] For the reasons set out above, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

[31] There is no question of general importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-350-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. There is no question of general importance for certification.

"William F. Pentney"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: