Date: 20160719
Docket: IMM-5535-15
Citation: 2016 FC 828
Ottawa, Ontario, July 19, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Boswell
BETWEEN:
|
USMAN AHMED
|
NAILA USMAN
|
SAAD USMAN
|
HAJIRA USMAN
|
ABDULLAH USMAN
|
Applicants
|
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Mr. Usman Ahmed, the principal Applicant, his wife and three youngest children are citizens of
[2]
After their arrival in Canada, Mr. Ahmed, his wife and three children sought protection as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act]. Their claims were rejected, however, by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board. In its decision dated November 13, 2015, the RPD found that Mr. Ahmed, his wife and three children had a viable internal flight alternative in
I.
The RPD’s Decision
[3]
The RPD found that the determinative issue was the availability of an internal flight alternative [IFA] for the Applicants in
[4]
On the question of whether Mr. Ahmed and his family would face a serious possibility of persecution or a risk to their lives in
[5]
The RPD concluded that Mr. Ahmed’s anti-jihadist activities in Sialkot were local in nature, and that he would not come to the attention of LeT upon relocating to Islamabad because his activities had not been such that he had acquired national notoriety as an anti-jihadi figure. Mr. Ahmed’s claim that LeT could trace him through the registration process with the police upon renting an apartment was, in the RPD’s view, not supported by the evidence. The RPD further concluded that there was a significant security apparatus in
[6]
On the question of whether relocation was reasonable, the RPD considered that Mr. Ahmed was a wealthy Pakistani businessman with the financial resources, knowledge, and level of skill and expertise with which he could easily rebuild and restart his businesses in
II.
Issues and Standard of Review
[7]
This application for judicial review raises one primary issue: was the RPD’s determination that the Applicants have a viable IFA in
[8]
I reject the Applicants’ argument that because the RPD misunderstood the test for determining the existence of an IFA, its decision should be reviewed on a standard of correctness. In my view, it is clear that the RPD correctly identified and reasonably applied the two-pronged test for an IFA emanating from the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 (C.A), 140 NR 138. I agree with the Respondent that the RPD’s application of this test should be reviewed on the standard of reasonableness.
[9]
This being so, the RPD’s assessment of the evidence is entitled to deference (see: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 53, [2008] 1 SCR 190 [Dunsmuir]; Yin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1209 at para 34; Mojahed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 690 at para 14). The Court should not interfere if the RPD’s decision is intelligible, transparent, and justifiable, and falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and the law (Dunsmuir at para 47). Those criteria are met if “the reasons allow the reviewing court to understand why the tribunal made its decision and permit it to determine whether the conclusion is within the range of acceptable outcomes”
: Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 at para 16, [2011] 3 SCR 708.
[10]
Moreover, it is not up to this Court to reweigh the evidence that was before the RPD, and it is not the function of this Court to substitute its own view of a preferable outcome: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at paras 59 and 61, [2009] 1 SCR 339. The RPD’s decision must be considered as an organic whole and the Court should not embark upon a line-by-line treasure hunt for error (Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., 2013 SCC 34 at para 54, [2013] 2 SCR 458; see also Ameni v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 164, at para 35, [2016] FCJ No 142).
III.
Was the RPD’s determination that the Applicants have a viable IFA in
Islamabad
reasonable?
[11]
The Applicants contend that the RPD used an “effective certainty of persecution”
test rather than relying on whether there were good grounds to believe that they would be personally targeted by LeT in Islamabad, thus leading to a stringent and near impossible burden of proof. However, the language in the RPD’s decision to which the Applicants object refers to factual findings made in the context of determining whether the Applicants had established, on a balance of probabilities, that they faced a serious possibility of persecution or a risk to their lives in
[12]
I agree with the Respondent that the RPD’s decision must be looked at as a whole and not, as the Applicants would have it, dissected and parsed in order to show that the RPD somehow misunderstood or misapplied the test for an IFA. As noted by the Court in Huerta Morales v
“it is not appropriate to assess words in isolation – one must examine the whole of the decision. The question to be asked is whether, on a reading of the whole of the decision, one is left in doubt as to whether the Board applied the right test [for determining the existence of an IFA]. If so, then the matter is reviewable. If there is no doubt that the correct test was applied, then the decision is not reviewable.”
In this case, I have no doubt that the correct test was not only correctly identified but also reasonably applied by the RPD. Hence, the Applicants’ application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[13]
The Applicants’ suggestion to the effect that the RPD did not base its conclusions on documentary evidence is without merit. The RPD cited extensively from the documentary evidence in the record throughout its decision. The RPD acknowledged all the evidence cited by the Applicants as to the prominence of LeT in
[14]
The documentary evidence contained in the certified tribunal record shows that LeT is a serious and important militant or terrorist organization in
[15]
The RPD dismissed Mr. Ahmed’s claim that LeT could trace him through the registration process with the police upon renting an apartment in
IV.
Conclusion
[16]
The Applicants’ application for judicial review is dismissed. The RPD’s decision is intelligible, transparent, and justifiable, and falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and the law. Moreover, the RPD’s reasons for its decision allow the Court to understand why it made its decision, one which is well within the range of acceptable outcomes.
[17]
Neither party raised a question of general importance and no such question is certified.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: the application for judicial review is dismissed; and no question of general importance is certified.
"Keith M. Boswell"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
|
IMM-5535-15
|
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
USMAN AHMED, NAILA USMAN, SAAD USMAN, HAJIRA USMAN, ABDULLAH USMAN v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
PLACE OF HEARING:
|
|
DATE OF HEARING:
|
June 22, 2016
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:
|
BOSWELL J.
|
DATED:
|
july 19, 2016
|
APPEARANCES:
Celeste Shankland
|
For The Applicants
|
Susan Gans
|
For The Respondent
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Law Office of Lisa Rosenblatt
Barristers and Solicitors
|
For The Applicants
|
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of
|
For The Respondent
|