Date: 20010116
Docket: IMM-2049-99
BETWEEN:
ABDALLAH JAAFAR ABOUL HASSAN
(aka ABDALLAH ABOUL HASSAN)
ZOHRA ROUMIEH
NESRINE ABOUL HASSAN
SARAH ABOUL HASSAN
ALY ABOUL HASSAN
MOHAMED ABOUL HASSAN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SIMPSON J.
[1] This is an application pursuant to s. 82.1(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the "Act") for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated March 29, 1999, wherein the Board determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees (the "Decision").
[2] This is the applicants' second refugee claim. Their first claim was rejected in March of 1997. Accordingly, the Decision dealt only with the applicants' fresh evidence.
Background
[3] The applicants are a family of six, including a husband and wife and their four dependent children. They are all citizens of Lebanon. In addition, the wife and the children are also citizens of Guinea. This citizenship arises because, from 1980 to 1995, the husband (the "Applicant") lived in Guinea. During that period, he worked as a manager of a used furniture store. He married his wife in Guinea and his four children were born there.
[4] The Applicant grew up in the village of Maarake in south Lebanon. After he finished high school and before he emigrated to Guinea, he joined the Amal militia in which his brothers Mohamad and Ali served as officers.
[5] In the early 1980s, Israeli troops controlled the Maarake area. According to the Applicant, two Lebanese families, the Faraj and the Khalil, worked with the Israelis and, on one occasion, they bombed a mosque for the purpose of killing supporters of the Amal militia. After the Israelis left in 1985, one of the Applicant's brothers led an inquiry into the bombing at the mosque. As a result of his investigation, one member of the Faraj family was executed, and the entire Faraj family was expelled from the village. The Applicant's refugee claim is based primarily on the fact that the Faraj family (the "Family") seeks revenge for these events.
[6] Since the denial of his first refugee claim, the Applicant has learned that his mother and two of his brothers, Mohamad and Ahmad, had to flee Lebanon for Saudi Arabia because of several bomb attacks on Mohamad's house. In the last attack, the Applicant's mother was injured and hospitalized. The Applicant said that these attacks were carried out by the Family and, as proof of this allegation, he relied on letters which has been sent to him by two of his brothers (together the "Letters"). The first was from Hussein. It was sent from France and was dated August 26, 1998. It stated, in part:
| Abdallah my brother; I want to tell you about our family in Saudi Arabia. I received a letter from brother Mohamad, telling me how much they suffered in Lebanon from bombing shells and dynamite. Because of that, my mother and brother Ahmad decided to move to Saudi Arabia where our father is. They are okay now, they say hi. I learned from him also that he sent you a letter with all the details about what happened to them in Lebanon, about their troubles, their worries and the threats they received. |
[7] The second letter came from Mohamad in Saudi Arabia and was dated January 17, 1999. It read, again in part:
| It was approximately, a year ago when I left Lebanon. I left under bad circumstances and after few attempts were made to bomb our house. They are always pursuing us. Especially, those "you know them"? They also threatened to kill us and they shot fire on me few times but thank God only one minor shot hit my foot once...Damn those who caused you and us all the troubles. Damn those who accused us and they are the criminals. They chased us away until we became separated and spread all over the world, when they are the ones should be tried and judged. |
[8] The Board reviewed the Letters and concluded that they did not provide clear evidence which indicated that the Family was responsible for the bombings. The Board held, based on the documentary record, that the bombings were not targeted at the Applicant's family, but were rather the result of general civil strife in Lebanon.
[9] At the hearing of this application for judicial review, the Respondent acknowledged that the Board made an error when it based a negative credibility finding on the fact that the Applicant's brother Mohamed had left his family in Lebanon. This finding was not supported by the evidence. In fact, Mohamed left his family only when they were safely in Saudi Arabia. The Respondent also agreed that a second negative credibility finding was weak because the inconsistency was minor. It involved the Board's conclusion that there had been an inconsistency in the way the Applicant testified about whether the bombing at his family's house had been reported to the police or to other authorities.
[10] Applicant's counsel submitted that, because the Board made the erroneous and weak findings of credibility discussed above, it could not continue to assess the Applicant's evidence in a fair way. In essence, counsel for the Applicant argued that the Board's assessment of the documentary evidence and its approach to the Letters was tainted by its incorrect and weak conclusions about the Applicant's credibility.
Discussion
[11] Counsel for both parties agreed that the documentary evidence indicated that the Amal militia and Hezbollah formed an electoral alliance in 1996 and won all 23 seats in south Lebanon in the elections of that year. Based on this evidence, the Board concluded that the Family could not have had either the political or the military power needed to target the Applicant's family in Maarake. In my opinion, this was the Board's central finding. Once it decided that the Family could not have targeted the Applicant's family home in Lebanon, it is my view that its other findings were subsidiary.
[12] I agree with the Board that the Letters did not identify the Family as the bombers of the family home in Lebanon. Further, in view of the documentary evidence, it is my view that it would not have been appropriate for the Board to infer that the Letters referred to the Family as suggested by counsel for the Applicant.
Conclusion
[13] I have concluded that the Board did not err when it held that there was no evidence to support the Applicant's claim. I have also concluded that the errors the Board did make were not material and did not taint its assessment of the Letters and the documentary evidence. Accordingly, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
(Sgd.) "Sandra J. Simpson"
Judge
Vancouver, B.C.
January 16, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| DOCKET NO.: IMM-2049-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ABDALLAH JAAFAR ABOUL HASSAN |
| (aka ABDALLAH ABOUL HASSAN) |
| ZOHRA ROUMIEH |
| NESRINE ABOUL HASSAN |
| SARAH ABOUL HASSAN |
| ALY ABOUL HASSAN |
| MOHAMED ABOUL HASSAN |
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 19, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SIMPSON J. |
| DATED: JANUARY 16, 2001 |
| APPEARANCES: Mr. Jon Dobrowolski |
For the Applicants
Mr. Marcel Larouche
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Jon Dobrowolski
Windsor, Ontario
| For the Applicants |
| Morris Rosenberg |
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
| For the Respondent |