/1
Ottawa, Ontario, March 31, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Ahed Ahmed Saleh Al-Bahri applied for refugee protection in Canada stating that he feared reprisals from his girlfriend's brothers back home in Jordan. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Mr. Al-Bahri's claim because of a lack of credible evidence. Mr. Al-Bahri argues that the Board erred in its treatment of the evidence and failed to provide him a fair opportunity to present his case. He asks me to order a new hearing before a different panel.
[2] I can find no basis for overturning the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
1. Did the Board fail to treat Mr. Al-Bahri fairly by proceeding in the absence of his counsel?
2. Did the Board misconstrue the evidence before it?
3. Did the Board wrongly draw an adverse inference from Mr. Al-Bahri's delay in making his claim?
II. Analysis
[3] I can overturn the Board's decision only if it was unsupported by the evidence, or if the Board treated Mr. Al-Bahri unfairly.
A. Did the Board fail to treat Mr. Al-Bahri fairly by proceeding in the absence of his counsel?
[4] Mr. Al-Bahri was not represented by counsel at his hearing. He argues that this prevented him from fully presenting his case. Specifically, he maintains that he was unable to supply the Board with corroborative evidence, which he now possesses.
[5] There is nothing in the record that indicates that Mr. Al-Bahri asked the Board for an adjournment so that he could secure counsel. Nor does he mention any such request in his supporting affidavit. Accordingly, I have no basis for concluding that the Board treated Mr. Al-Bahri unfairly. Whether represented or not, Mr. Al-Bahri bore the onus of persuading the Board that his refugee claim had merit. The corroborating evidence that he wanted to present to the Board, a letter from a person who allegedly witnessed Mr. Al-Bahri being assaulted, was not obtained until after the Board had heard and decided his case. No explanation is given for this delay. Mr. Al-Bahri was familiar with the refugee protection system in Canada, having made an earlier claim in 1991. In the circumstances, I cannot find that the Board treated Mr. Al-Bahri unfairly.
B. Did the Board misconstrue the evidence before it?
[6] Mr. Al-Bahri maintained that his girlfriend's brothers had assaulted and threatened him for having compromised her family's honour. The alleged assault and subsequent threats took place after Mr. Al-Bahri was seen hugging and kissing his girlfriend in public.
[7] The Board was doubtful that Mr. Al-Bahri ever had a serious relationship with a woman in Jordan. It noted that he knew little about her and had not made any inquiries about her since coming to Canada. Further, the Board did not believe that Mr. Al-Bahri was assaulted. He did not present any corroborating evidence or a police report.
[8] In addition, the Board was not satisfied that Mr. Al-Bahri's account of events was plausible. There was no evidence that his girlfriend came from a religiously conservative family. Nor was there evidence indicating that reprisals are made against men for damaging a family's honour. Typically, women suffer the consequences.
[9] I cannot conclude that the Board's decision was out of keeping with the evidence before it.
C. Did the Board wrongly draw an adverse inference from Mr. Al-Bahri's delay in making his claim?
[10] The Board noted that Mr. Al-Bahri had spent a month in the United States before coming to Canada and had not sought protection there. Further, Mr. Al-Bahri did not file his claim in Canada until three weeks after his arrival here.
[11] Mr. Al-Bahri argues that the Board should have realized that a person from the Middle East could not successfully obtain asylum in the United Statesduring the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. In addition, the Board failed to consider his explanation for the delay in Canada. He said this was attributable to his immigration consultant, not a lack of genuine fear of returning to Jordan.
[12] The Board is entitled to consider whether a refugee claimant's behaviour, including any delay in filing a claim, is consistent with a subjective fear of persecution in his or her country of origin. Here, after having already found that Mr. Al-Bahri's version of events was not credible, the Board went on to observe that the his conduct was not consistent with his claim that he was in imminent danger. This was especially so given that Mr. Al-Bahri knew how to make a refugee claim, having already done so before.
[13] In the circumstances, I cannot fault the Board's treatment of the issue of delay.
III. Disposition
[14] This application for judicial review is dismissed. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
- The application for judicial review is dismissed;
- No question of general importance is stated.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL ANDSOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6688-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: AL-BAHRI v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: January 18, 2006
APPEARANCES:
| Ahed Ahmed Saleh Al-Bahri
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
| Claire Le Riche
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Ahed Ahmed Saleh Al-Bahri
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
| John H. Sims, Q.C. Toronto, ON |