Date: 20050513
Citation: 2005 FC 690
Toronto, Ontario, May 13th, 2005
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
HANY NAGAH ATTIA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected Mr. Attia's claim for status as a refugee or a person in need of protection on the basis that it found his story to be completely implausible taking into account the specific facts, circumstances, and conditions prevailing in the location where the alleged incidents took place. He seeks judicial review of that decision.
[2] Despite the articulate submissions of Mr. Attia's counsel, I am not persuaded that the application should be allowed.
[3] Mr. Attia is a Coptic Christian and a citizen of Egypt. He claims that while working at a cell phone company, he became acquainted with a Muslim woman. They became friends and the Muslim woman was interested in marrying him. She suggested, initially in a joking manner, that they marry. Mr. Attia responded that their respective religions would not permit such an event. Shortly thereafter, he says that the woman changed completely. She stopped wearing makeup and started coming to work in the hejab. She suggested (strongly) that he convert to Islam and marry her. He says that he declined. Three days later, four men allegedly abducted him and took him out to a highway where they threatened him with death if he did not marry the woman and convert to Islam by stating the Shehada. He did so, out of fear, and said he needed a few weeks to make marriage arrangements.
[4] Upon his release, he reported the incident at two police stations. He interpreted the comments of the police, at his local station, as threatening and as intimating that he was taking advantage of a Muslim woman. He went to a friend's house and his friend urged him to call his [Mr. Attia's] parents. He did and found his parents sympathetic. His father made arrangements for him to leave for Canada.
[5] The RPD examined the documentary evidence and could find no reference to Coptic Christian males being coerced to convert to Islam. There are references to young, Coptic women who allegedly are forced to convert and marry Muslin men. However, those reports and their frequency are disputed and observers, including the human rights watch, find it difficult to determine whether coercion was used. The evidence indicates that while Coptic Christians do face forms of discrimination, the discrimination does not amount to persecution. The government has taken assertive steps to address the discriminatory treatment.
[6] Mr. Attia claims that the RPD engaged in a selective reading of the documentary evidence. He submits that the fact that the documentary evidence does not mention coercion to convert and marry in relation to men does not mean that such an event could not happen.
[7] I would not characterize the board's review of the documentary evidence as selective. The RPD cannot be faulted for failing to refer to evidence that does not exist. It is reasonable to expect that if events, such as that described by Mr. Attia, occur, they would be mentioned in the documentary evidence. The board's conclusion in this regard cannot be characterized as unreasonable. As Mr. Justice Hugessen noted, in Adu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1995] F.C.J. No. 114 (F.C.A.), the presumption that a claimant's sworn testimony is true is always rebuttable, and in appropriate circumstances, may be rebutted by the failure of the documentary evidence to mention what one would normally expect it to mention.
[8] It is within this context that the board found Mr. Attia's story to be implausible. I agree with Mr. Attia, and the respondent concedes, that the board's finding that Mr. Attia feared going to the police alone was incorrect. However, nothing turns on this error. At the end of the day, although the board's decision is awkward and not particularly well-drafted, it is not unreasonable. Mr. Attia has put forward alternative reasoning and explanations, but they do not assist because a decision will be unreasonable only if there is no line of analysis within the given reasons that could support it: Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247. That is not the case here.
[9] Counsel did not suggest a question for certification and none arises on these facts.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-5178-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: HANY NAGAH ATTIA
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 12, 2005
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: MAY 13, 2005
APPEARANCES BY:
Randal Montgomery FOR THE APPLICANT
Kristina Dragaitis FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Randal Montgomery
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims Q.C
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ont. FOR THE RESPONDENT