2012 FC, 2012 FC 1433

Date: 20121206 Docket: IMM-2580-12 Citation: 2012 FC 1433 Toronto , Ontario , December 6, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau BETWEEN: NAWAL MUNDER KHEDER ALCHARIC, FANAR HATEM ZAKARNAH, FADI HATEM ZAKARNAH, DAWOOD HATEM ZAKARNAH AND DIANA HATEM ZAKARNAH Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The principal claimant, Mrs. Nawal Munder Kheder Alcharic [applicant] and her children are citizens of Jordan who sought refugee protection in Canada.

On February 28, 2012, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [Board] dismissed their claim because the applicant lacks credibility and also because she has not rebutted the presumption of state protection. [ 2 ] The applicant was born in Iraq where she attended university and worked as a teacher. She met her former husband after moving to Jordan. They married in 1994 and so the applicant obtained citizenship in Jordan. In 2000, the applicant’s husband began working in Saudi Arabia.

The applicant and their children eventually accompanied him and lived in Saudi Arabia as temporary residents. Their problems are said to have began in 2008, when her husband’s manager was replaced by a member of the Al-Onayzi tribe. The applicant described him as a religious extremist. She alleges that this man harassed and threatened her husband, demanding that he convert to Islam. She claims that the situation escalated on May 20, 2008 when a group of people broke into their home, assaulted her husband and shouted that the family had a false religion and must leave Saudi Arabia.

The applicant claims they could not go to the Saudi police because the police would not protect foreigners, especially Christian foreigners. The applicant believes that she would not be safe in Jordan because the Al-Onayzi tribe lives there as well. She claims that, as a Christian, she has no protection. The applicant fled with the children to Canada and they arrived on August 23, 2008. Her husband could not leave Saudi Arabia because his employer had his passport. The applicant claims that she has lost contact with her husband and fears that he has been harmed.

Be that as it may, since her coming into Canada, the applicant is now divorced from her husband. [ 3 ] The applicants now seek judicial review of the Board’s decision dismissing their claim for protection. It is not challenged

that the standard of review is reasonableness: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9. On the whole, taking into account the totality ofthe evidence on record, in all regards, I find that the decision of the Board is justifiable, transparent and intelligible. Contrary to theallegations of the applicants, the Board’s analysis for both credibility and state protection is not flawed. Accordingly, this applicationmust be dismissed. [4] The Board’s findings with respect to credibility and absence of risk are well articulated and they are based on the evidenceon record.

It was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant was not credible because her story included a number ofimplausibilities, while the testimony given by the applicant’s brother was not credible or trustworthy, and the assertions of risk made bythe applicant were not supported by the documentary evidence or contrary to the same. In particular, the applicant’s brother testified thatmen had come looking for the applicant in Jordan, which the Board did not believe for a number of reasons.

The Board noted thatanyone looking for the applicant and her children “would know that they were not registered in Jordan and therefore they would knowthey were not there.” This assertion is supported by the evidence. The applicant notably testified that she would have to register with theauthorities upon return to Jordan and that her alleged persecutors would have access to the registry. Moreover, it was not unreasonablefor the Board to consider that it was culturally inappropriate in Jordan for strangers to ask about the applicant’s whereabouts.

Thus, theBoard determined that it was implausible that the men would have acted contrary to cultural norms, while it was not credible that theapplicant’s alleged persecutors would “so blatantly warn the claimants that they would be at risk.” As a final observation on credibility,the Board also doubted why the applicant had divorced her husband. The applicant testified that she found it difficult to be asked abouther husband when she accessed medical services and at school. The Board observed that Canada is known not to harass single mothersby asking questions about their husbands or partners.

I do not find this assertion of the Board capricious or arbitrary. [5] In order to be granted protection, claimants must also overcome the presumption that their home country is able to offerthem protection: Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 689. Therefore, the Board also consideredwhether state protection might reasonably have been forthcoming had the applicant returned to Jordan. In the case at bar, the applicanthas never experienced harassment or discrimination, much less persecution, in Jordan. In particular, she has never had problems with thepolice.

The applicant alleged that the Al-Onayzi tribe has substantial influence over the police force and that, as a woman without anytribal affiliation she has no one to rely on for protection. The Board determined that there was nothing in the documentary evidence toindicate that police protection in Jordan depends on tribal affiliation or that the Al-Onayzi tribe dominates the police. The Board statedthat “Christianity is a recognized religion in Jordan and thus is under the protection of the Jordanian authorities.” The Board also notedone instance when the government intervened to resolve a tribal dispute.

These findings or inferences are not unreasonable in thecircumstances and again are supported by the evidence. [6] As a result, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed. Counsel has not proposed a question of general importanceand no question shall be certified by the Court.

JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is this application is dismissed and no question is certified. “Luc Martineau” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2580-12 STYLE OF CAUSE: NAWAL MUNDER KHEDER ALCHARIC, FANAR HATEM ZAKARNAH, FADI HATEM ZAKARNAH, DAWOOD HATEM ZAKARNAH AND DIANA HATEM ZAKARNAH v

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: December 5, 2012 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT BY: MARTINEAU J. DATED: December 6, 2012 APPEARANCES : Phillip J.L. Trotter FOR THE APPLICANTS Aleksandra Lipska FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Lawyer Toronto , Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto , Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT