AHMAD OMID (a.k.a OMID AHMAD) (a.k.a. FARHAD AHMAD SULTANI) Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF, 2016 FC 202

Date: 20160215 Docket: IMM-160-15 Citation: 2016 FC 202 Montréal, Quebec, February 15, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:AHMAD OMID (a.k.a OMID AHMAD) (a.k.a. FARHAD AHMAD SULTANI)ApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Ahmad Omid a.k.a. Omid Ahmad a.k.a. Farhad Ahmad Sultani (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of a decision ofthe Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”). In that decision, dated December 17, 2014, the Boarddetermined that the Applicant is neither a Convention Refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to

section 96 and subsection97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Afghanistan. He sought protection in Canada on the basis of membership in a particular socialgroup, risk to life or of cruel and usual treatment or punishment and danger of torture. The Board rejected his claims because it did notfind the basis of his claim to be credible, and it found that the Applicant had an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”).

The Board also foundthat the Applicant had failed to rebut the presumption of state protection. [3] These three findings are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see Tsyhanko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship &Immigration), 2008 FC 819 at paragraphs 12-14. According to the decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 ,[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, that standard requires that a decision be transparent, justifiable and intelligible.

Application of the standard ofreasonableness means that a range of possible, acceptable decisions is available to the decision maker, as long as the result meets thecriteria of transparency, justification and intelligibility. [4] Issues of procedural fairness are reviewable on the standard of correctness; see the decision in Canada (Citizenship andImmigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at paragraph 43. [5] I have reviewed the transcript of the hearing held before the Board on October 22, 2014.

I have also considered thesubmissions of the parties, and agree with the argument of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) thatessentially, the Applicant is challenging the weight given to the evidence by the Board. [6] I am not persuaded that the Board’s credibility findings are unreasonable, when measured against the standard ofreasonableness referred to above. [7] Likewise, I see no reviewable error in the manner in which the Board made its findings about an IFA and state protection. Ineach case, the Board considered the relevant principles and the relevant jurisprudence.

The Board weighed the evidence before it, as it isauthorized to do. [8] Considering the evidence that the Applicant put forward, including country condition documents, I am satisfied that theBoard’s ultimate conclusions were reasonable and there is no basis for judicial intervention. [9] The Applicant submits that the Board breached his rights to procedural fairness by failing to consider the further post-hearing submissions and documents that were submitted on December 9, 2014.

Although the Board had accepted the first post-hearingsubmissions filed by the Applicant, it did not consider the second set of post-hearing materials, on the ground that it was functus. [10] The Applicant in making his post-hearing submissions, including the presentation of further documents, did not comply withRule 43 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256. [11] The Board was not obliged to consider the second set of non-compliant submissions and evidence. It did not breach theprocedural fairness rights owing to the Applicant.

There is no reviewable error in this regard. [12] In the result, this application for judicial review was dismissed, no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review was dismissed, no question for certification arising. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-160-15 STYLE OF CAUSE: AHMAD OMID (A.K.A OMID AHMAD) (A.K.A. FARHAD AHMAD SULTANI) v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TOROnto, ontario DATE OF HEARING: august 26, 2015 JUDGMENT AND reasons: HENEGHAN J.

DATED: February 15, 2016 APPEARANCES : Djawid Taheri For The Applicant Brad Gotkin For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Djawid Taheri Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant William F. Pentney, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent