Date: 20240222

Docket: IMM-219-23

Citation: 2024 FC 180

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

Ottawa, Ontario, February 22, 2024

PRESENT: Madam Justice Azmudeh

BETWEEN:

OMAR MOUSSA YARA OMAR MOUSSA AMIR MAHDI MOUSSA SARA AL MAWLA

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] Omar Moussa, Yara Omar Moussa, Amir Mahdi Moussa and Sara Al Mawla [collectively, the applicants] are citizens of Lebanon who are seeking judicial review of the rejection of their refugee protection claim by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada [IRB]. The application for judicial review is dismissed for the following reasons.

[2] The undisputed facts accepted by the RAD are as follows:

• The applicants lived in Alkousaibe, an agglomeration of the city of Nabatieh, in southeast Lebanon. The principal applicant was a car dealer. In July 2018, one of his vehicles was stolen by a criminal gang. He was warned that his life could be in danger if he filed a report with the police. The gang demanded a significant amount of money from him before agreeing to return the vehicle.

• Nine months later, in April 2019, the gang forced the principal applicant to go to a meeting with their leader, Abou Ali Hamieh, who then ordered the principal applicant to provide the gang with the name and address of each person he sold a vehicle to from then on and a copy of the keys to that vehicle. The principal applicant told him that he would not comply with that requirement. He was then beaten by several gang members and warned that he was going to have to reconsider his position.

• Four days later, several gang members visited the principal applicant and told him that their leader had ordered that he be killed because their leader held him responsible for the arrest of one of their own after the principal applicant filed a complaint with the police. Upon hearing that, the principal applicant decided that he and his family had to leave the country for their own safety.

[3] Both the RPD and the RAD concluded that the applicants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Beirut and rejected their allegations that the criminal organization had links with Hezbollah or the Lebanese government. They concluded that Ali Hamieh’s gang had neither the means nor the motivation to harm the applicants in Beirut. Both divisions also considered Beirut a reasonable IFA. At the hearing before the RAD, the applicants submitted three new pieces of evidence, which the RAD accepted under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA]. The evidence is as follows:

1. A letter from the mayor of Alkousaibe-Nabatieh, Hassan Rashid Mehdi, dated July 1, 2022:

2. A letter from the mayor of Msaytbeh-Beirut, Abdallah Mohamad Al-Akhras dated July 13, 2022:

3. Statement by the principal applicant’s father dated July 14, 2022. The English translation in the record reads as follows:

I. Decision

[4] I dismiss the applicant’s application for judicial review because I consider the RAD’s decision to be reasonable.

[5] The parties submit and I agree that the standard of review in this case is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2019] 4 SCR 653 [Vavilov]).

Legal framework

[6] The two-pronged IFA test is well established:

• (a) the claimant will not be persecuted (on the basis of the “serious possibility” test) or exposed to danger or risk under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA] (on the basis of the “balance of probabilities” test) in the proposed IFA; and

• (b) in all the circumstances, including circumstances particular to the claimant, conditions in the IFA are such that it would not be unreasonable for the claimant to seek refuge there.

[7] Once the issue of an IFA has been raised, the onus is on claimants to show that they do not have a viable IFA. This means that, to counter the argument that a viable IFA exists, claimants must show either that they would be at risk in the proposed IFA or, if they are not at risk in the proposed IFA, that it would be unreasonable in all the circumstances for them to relocate there. The burden of the second test (whether the IFA is reasonable) is very heavy because the Federal Court of Appeal held in Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (CA), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164 [Ranganathan], that the test requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area. In addition, the test requires actual and concrete evidence of such conditions. For the IFA test in general, see Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA), [1992] 1 FC 706; Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589 (CA); Ranganathan; and Rivero Marin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1504 at paragraph 8.

Analysis: Is the decision reasonable?

[8] First prong of the IFA test: Was the RAD’s analysis reasonable in concluding that the applicants did not face a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA on a Convention ground under section 96 of the IRPA or, on a balance of probabilities, a personal risk of harm under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA?

[9] The applicants state that the RAD admitted the new evidence but failed to examine it in a reasonable manner. They claim that the three statements directly attacked and targeted the RPD’s assertions in its decision that the principal applicant’s persecutors would not have the motivation to look for him, given the time that had passed.

[10] I disagree. In fact, I believe the RAD addressed why the evidence as a whole, including the new evidence, did not help the applicants meet their burden of demonstrating that they faced a serious risk of persecution or a personal risk of harm in the IFA.

[23] Taking into account the first prong of the IFA analysis established by the case law, that is, whether there is a serious possibility of the appellants being persecuted or personally subjected to a risk to their lives, I am of the opinion that the evidence presented, including the new evidence, fails to establish that such a risk exists. Nothing is known about the identity of the three individuals who reportedly approached the mayors of Alkousaibe and Msaytbeh other than that they were strangers who “do not have any official status.” Even with the information in the principal appellant’s father’s statement, I do not consider it reasonable to assume that those people have ties to the gang or to make assumptions about why they wanted to know the whereabouts of the principal appellant.

[Emphasis added]

[11] Having examined the three statements reproduced above, I find the RAD’s conclusions to be reasonable. At the hearing, counsel for the applicants placed great emphasis on the father’s letter in arguing that the nexus with the gang’s ongoing motivation had been established. However, the letter is rather vague. It is not clear whether the father’s statement that he was extorted because of his son is based on reliable evidence or on his own deductions. The father does not mention a time or a place. Once the issue of an IFA is raised, the onus is on the applicant to prove that an IFA does not exist. The RAD concluded that these letters, including the father’s, failed to prove this. The applicants are in effect asking the Court to reweigh the evidence, which it cannot do.

[12] I also note that the mayor’s letters, including that of the mayor of the district in Beirut, were vague in that the individuals who had approached them were unknown. Neither the mayors nor the RAD ought to speculate on whether a conversation with unknown individuals years later would show that, on a balance of probabilities, the same gang continues to be motivated with regard to the applicants.

[13] In the circumstances and given the vague information in the letter, the decision not to hold an oral hearing was also reasonable.

[14] The applicants claim that the RPD and the RAD also disregarded evidence of links between the gang and Hezbollah. I do not think so. I also consider it reasonable that the RAD saw no link between the criminal gang and Hezbollah or the government. In this regard, the RAD agreed with the RPD and concluded that the new evidence was insufficient. The RPD based its conclusion in part on the following exchange (in English) at the hearing:

[15] On the basis of the above, the RPD drew the following conclusion, with which the RAD reasonably agreed (the proceedings before the RPD were conducted in English):

[16] Therefore, I am of the opinion that it was reasonable for the RAD to conclude that the family would be safe in Beirut.

Second prong: Could the RAD reasonably conclude that it would be reasonable for the applicants, in their particular circumstances, to relocate to Beirut?

[17] In my opinion, the RAD carried out an independent analysis of the second prong and concluded that the applicants had failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof. The RAD was aware of the problems in Lebanon that had created generally difficult conditions for its citizens:

[24] As for the second prong of the IFA analysis, which involves determining whether Beirut is a reasonable choice given the circumstances, including those particular to the appellants, I do not consider that the available evidence concerning the current conditions in that city, including the evidence in the National Documentation Package on Lebanon, establishes that the appellants’ lives and safety would be at risk if they had to move there. I acknowledge that the entire country is in political shambles with no end in sight and that the country is also experiencing an economic and financial crisis, which has had devastating consequences for a large part of the population. Added to this is the impact of the massive explosion in the Port of Beirut in August 2020, which destroyed a large part of the city. All of this makes returning to Lebanon an unenviable option for the appellants, and it is certainly not a desirable environment for raising young children.

[25] However, the case law has set a very strict test for determining whether an IFA is unreasonable. What is required is nothing less than establishing the existence of conditions that put the appellants’ lives and safety at risk. Instability alone is not the test of reasonableness, nor is disintegrating infrastructure. I therefore conclude that the appellants have failed to discharge their burden of proof with respect to the second prong of the IFA analysis.

[18] There is a clear chain of reasoning that explains how the RAD reached its conclusion. That makes it reasonable.

JUDGMENT in IMM-219-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is as follows:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. There is no question for certification.

	“Negar Azmudeh”
	Judge

Certified true translation

Vincent Mar

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:	IMM-219-23
STYLE OF CAUSE:	OMAR MOUSSA, YARA OMAR MOUSSA, AMIR MAHDI MOUSSA, SARA AL MAWLA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:	MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING:	JANUARY 31 2024
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:	AZMUDEH J
DATED:	FEBRUARY 22, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Jacques Beauchemin	FOR THE APPLICANTS
Jeanne Robert	FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Jacques Beauchemin Counsel	FOR THE APPLICANTS
Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec	FOR THE RESPONDENT