Docket: IMM-8643-24
Citation: 2025 FC 545
Toronto, Ontario, March 24, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
BETWEEN: |
MOHAMAD FARAJ |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Mohamad Faraj [the Applicant], seeks judicial review of the decision made by a Senior Immigration Officer [the Officer], dated April 4, 2024 [Decision], wherein the Officer denied the Applicant’s Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] application which was based on the Applicant’s alleged fear of Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah who he believes will consider him to be an Israeli collaborator based on his personal and family profile.
[2] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Decision bears the requisite hallmarks of a reasonable decision and the Applicant has failed to show a basis for this Court’s intervention. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
II. Facts
A. The Applicant’s Family Background in Lebanon
[3] The Applicant is a citizen of Lebanon. He and his family are from Bint Jbeil, Lebanon, a city that was occupied by Israel from 1982 to 2000 as part of Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. During the occupation, Israel formed the Southern Lebanese Army [SLA] and forcibly enlisted youth in the area.
[4] Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group, took over Bint Jbeil in 2000 after Israel’s departure. As an occupying force, Israel to this date is considered an enemy of Lebanon, and both the Lebanese government and Hezbollah consider it a crime to have any relation with Israel.
[5] The Applicant asserts that his three brothers, Raif, Hicham and Ali, all allegedly faced persecution and risk in Lebanon due to their perceived connections with Israel. According to the Applicant’s evidence:
● Raif was kidnapped in 1981 by Syrian Intelligence after his friend accused him of spying for Israel. The Applicant’s family did not hear from him afterwards, and only found out in 2014 that he had died while in detainment due to acute renal failure. The Applicant’s family believes Raif died of torture.
● Hicham was, allegedly, forced to join the SLA and was part of the group from 1988 to 1995. The Applicant claims that Hicham was able to escape persecution in Lebanon by fleeing to the United States of America in 1995.
● Ali was taken in by the Lebanese government as part of their effort to “search for traitors who were involved with the SLA or Israel.” Despite Ali having no connections to Israel nor the SLA, he was brutally beaten and jailed for one year due to his brother Hisham being part of the SLA.
B. The Applicant’s Work in Israel
[6] In 1998, during the time of the Israeli occupation, the Applicant worked in Tel Aviv, Israel. He says he left the job after three months and returned to Lebanon because the manager of the restaurant suggested that the Applicant work with Israel to make more money. The Applicant was afraid of the consequences of being seen as a collaborator with Israel and left the job.
C. The Applicant’s Refugee Claim
[7] The Applicant stayed in Lebanon until 2003. He moved to the United States of America [United States] to get married in 2004. When the couple separated a year later, the Applicant’s ex-spouse withdrew her sponsorship petition for the Applicant. The Applicant remained in the United States illegally until 2020. On January 6, 2020, he entered Canada and has remained in Canada since. The Applicant applied for refugee protection in Canada, but the application was denied due to his criminal conviction in the United States.
D. The Applicant’s PRRA Application and the Decision
[8] The Applicant’s PRRA application was denied on April 4, 2024 by the Officer who considered there to be less than a mere possibility that the Applicant would face a risk of persecution as described in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act] and that the Applicant is unlikely to face a risk of cruel or unusual treatment, punishment, or risk to life under section 97 of the Act.
[9] After considering all the evidence, the Officer concluded that the Applicant does not have a profile that would put him “under enhanced scrutiny after his return to Lebanon.”
The Officer found there to be little evidence to support his subjective fear of being perceived as a collaborator with Israel, given that there was no evidence he had been sought by Lebanese authorities or Hezbollah over the last 20 years. Despite thorough investigations of Hezbollah and the Lebanese government after Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, the Applicant was “never arrested, detained, questioned, suspected or in any way shape or form linked with Israel, the SLA or collaboration with Israel by Hezbollah or Lebanese authorities”
during the four years he lived in Lebanon after the Israeli withdrawal. Further, the Officer noted that there is little evidence suggesting that Lebanese authorities or Hezbollah were aware that the Applicant worked in Israel for three months or that they are aware of it now, 20 years later.
[10] The Officer gave little weight to the letters of support from the Applicant’s family members which baldly stated that the Applicant will die if he returns to Lebanon, as the Officer found the letters failed to “provide evidence to substantiate the claims made within them.”
The Officer also gave little weight to two news articles about the Applicant’s brother, Raif, on the basis that they provide “low probative value towards establishing a personalized risk for the [A]pplicant in Lebanon,”
given that they were solely about his brother Raif’s death.
[11] The Officer therefore dismissed the Applicant’s PRRA application.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[12] The Applicant has raised the following issue on this application: did the Officer err in the assessment of the Applicant’s family profile, including by ignoring relevant country condition evidence?
[13] The applicable standard of review of a decision on the merits is reasonableness as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. A reasonable decision “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility,”
and the burden is on the challenging party to show that the decision is unreasonable. (Vavilov at paras 99-100).
[14] Reasonableness review seeks to ensure that a decision contains “an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis … that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
(Vavilov at para 85). Both the rationale and the outcome must be justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision maker (Vavilov at para 99). The Court must engage in a robust review while showing deference to the expertise of the administrative tribunal below and must refrain from re-weighing or re-assessing the evidence (Vavilov at paras 94, 125).
IV. Analysis
[15] The Applicant submits that the Officer failed to account for significant evidence of his family’s profile which supports the danger faced by the Applicant if he were to return to Lebanon. The Applicant argues that while the Officer was dismissive of the Applicant’s fear because he had been twice investigated by the Hezbollah following the end of Isreal’s occupation and by the Lebanese army in 2001 when he was doing his one-year mandatory military service, the Officer failed to take into account two critical pieces of evidence which post-date these investigations.
[16] First, the Officer ignored important information in a country condition evidence source which addressed Hezbollah’s motives for tracking people. The Officer relied on the source to find that the Applicant did not fit the profile of someone who would be tracked and targeted by Hezbollah. The Applicant suggests that the Officer did not address a different aspect of the source that contradicted the Officer’s conclusion that there is little evidence that Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah would become aware of the Applicant if he were to return to Lebanon. That evidence is that Hezbollah is a “state within a state”
who have filled the void left by the Lebanese authorities who are unable to provide basic services to its citizens. The Applicant argues that he will almost certainly be in contact with Hezbollah given the extensive “social services network”
now run by Hezbollah.
[17] Second, the Applicant argues that the Officer misinterpreted the evidence concerning his brother Raif by failing to address the fact that Raif was thought to be an Israeli spy and that this relationship with Israel was made public in 2014. According to the Applicant, the Applicant’s family profile changed “dramatically”
after this date which is long after the Hezbollah investigations upon which the Officer relied. The Applicant argues that the cumulative effect of this publication, together with the evidence about his other brothers and his work in Isreal, should have been considered given the likelihood that he will be investigated by Hezbollah upon his return to Lebanon after 20 years.
[18] The Respondent submits that the Officer reasonably assessed the evidence connected to both the Applicant’s personal background and family profile and found that there was insufficient evidence that the Applicant will be a target of the Lebanese authorities or Hezbollah upon his return to Lebanon. The Respondent contends that it was open to the Officer to consider the Applicant’s fears to be unfounded given that the Applicant passed previous vetting by these authorities. The Respondent argues that the Officer considered both the 2014 article and the country condition evidence and determined that the Applicant had failed to make out a personalized risk connected to this evidence, which was his onus to do (citing Chukwunyere v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 210 at para 14).
[19] I agree with the Respondent. The Officer did consider and expressly addressed the 2014 article and the fact that the Applicant’s brother was “kidnapped by Syrian intelligence in October 1981 after being accused by one of his friends of spying for Isreal.”
The significance of the actual publication does not change the rationale of the Officer for finding that the Applicant had not made out a personalized risk of persecution based on his family’s profile, the cumulative impact of which the Officer also addressed:
The basis of the applicant’s fear of being perceived a collaborator with Isreal by the Lebanese government, authorities or Hezbollah due to his family’s associations and due to his work for 3 months in Isreal in 1998 is largely speculative. The evidence presented does not support the applicant’s assertions that he would be harmed or persecuted upon return to Lebanon.”
[20] This finding was reasonably open to the Officer and the Applicant’s submissions amount to a call for this Court to reassess and reweigh the evidence, which it is not entitled to do (Vavilov at para 125).
V. Conclusion
[21] As the Applicant has failed to meet his onus of showing that the decision is unreasonable, this application is dismissed.
Email this Content