JEAN RIGAN BENOIT Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2020 FC 822

Date: 20200812 Docket: IMM-4677-19 Citation: 2020 FC 822 [UNREVISED CERTIFIED ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, August 12, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lafrenière BETWEEN:JEAN RIGAN BENOITApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Overview [1] The applicant is from Haiti.

He seeks judicial review of a decision rendered by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] on July 3, 2019.The RAD dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] in which the latterconcluded that the applicant was neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigrationand Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. [2] The only issue in dispute is whether, in finding that the applicant had the possibility of an internal flight alternative [IFA] in Haiti, theRAD committed a reviewable error. [3] For the reasons set out below, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Factual Background [4] The applicant’s refugee protection claim is based on the following allegations. [5] The applicant’s father owned a farm in Haiti, where he lived with his entire family, including the applicant. In January 2013, graffitiwas put on the front door of the farm and death threats were made. As the eldest son, the applicant felt the threats were targeted at him. [6] These acts were reported to the police and the justice of the peace, however, the threats persisted.

A few weeks later, the applicantand his family had to leave the farm to live in Croix-des-Bouquet, a town 20 minutes away. [7] In November 2013, the applicant left Haiti for Brazil. He took the opportunity to work in that country, and stayed there for aroundthree years. [8] On August 7, 2017, the applicant entered Canada through the United States and filed his refugee protection claim. [9] The RPD concluded that the applicant was not caught by the exclusionary provision of

Article 1E of the United Nations Conventionrelating to the Status of Refugees, as no evidence had been presented as to his status in Brazil. However, the account of his fear in Haitiwas deemed not credible. In addition, the SPR concluded that there was a viable internal flight alternative in the cities of Cap-Haitien,Cayes or the capital, Port-au-Prince. As a result, the RPD rejected the claim on January 24, 2018. [10] On appeal, the RAD concluded that the RPD erred regarding the applicant’s credibility. The decisive issue in the appeal was theexistence of an IFA.

The RAD considered the two-part IFA test set out in Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment andImmigration), (FCA), [1992] 1 FC 706 at paragraphs 9 and 10, [1991] FCJ No 1256 (QL) (FCA), namely, that: (1)the decision-maker must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted inthe proposed IFA; and (2) conditions in the proposed IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, upon consideration of all thecircumstances, including consideration of a claimant’s personal circumstances, for the claimant to seek refuge there. [11] The RAD first considered whether the applicant was at serious risk of persecution in the region constituting the IFA.

It concludedthat the applicant was not at risk of threats to his life nor did he risk cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he returned to Croix-des-Bouquets, where his family was located, and even less so if he took refuge elsewhere in the country. [12] As for the second part, the RAD concluded that the applicant has several family members in Haiti, that he has the possibility ofmoving within the country, and that his ability to earn a living is not limited, despite the fact that the country’s economic performance isnot ideal. [13] The RAD concluded that a viable internal flight alternative exists for the applicant, either in Croix-des-Bouquets or elsewhere inHaiti.

III. Analysis [14] The applicant argued that the specific circumstances prevailing in Haiti meant that an IFA could not reasonably be considered. [15] According to the applicant, the RAD could not ignore the fact that Haiti is a highly community-based country where it isparticularly easy to obtain information on a specific target and efficiently track that person down.

In addition, he criticized the RAD forhaving erred in its analysis of the applicant’s possibility of working elsewhere in Haiti. [16] The parties agreed that the standard of review that applies to a finding of a viable IFA is reasonableness (Singh v Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 727 at para 7).

The recent Supreme Court decision Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) vVavilov, 2019 SCC 65, confirms that there is a presumption that the appropriate standard of review is reasonableness. [17] There was no evidence to indicate that those who allegedly threatened the applicant and his family still wish to pursue them. I agreewith the respondent that the IFA in this case has been demonstrated due to the presence of his family in Croix-des-Bouquets for severalyears without incident.

It was therefore open to the RAD to conclude that the interest of the perpetrators was simply to seize the land. [18] As to applicant’s difficulty in obtaining suitable employment, this is not a valid reason for not applying the viable internal flightalternative (Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589(FCA)). In any event, the evidence shows that the applicant studied five years at the secondary level in Haiti, which, in the context ofthat country, is considerable. He also worked as a stock handler for almost two years in Brazil.

It was therefore reasonable for the RADto conclude that the applicant had the capacity to work [translation] "“as he did during his recent stay in Brazil”." IV. Conclusion [19] Before this Court, the applicant made the same arguments that were already analyzed, but were not accepted by the RAD.

In judicialreview, the role of the Court is not to reweigh the evidence or to interpret it differently (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa,2009 SCC 12 at para 61). [20] The conclusions involving the existence of an IFA "“warrant deference because they involve not only the evaluation of theapplicant’s circumstances, …but also an expert understanding of the country conditions involved”" (Photskhverashvili v Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 415 at para 16; Lebedeva v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1165 at para 32). [21] I find nothing irrational in the RAD’s decision-making process and its conclusions.

Rather, I believe that its analysis has therequired attributes of transparency, justifiability and intelligibility, and there is no reviewable error in the decision. [22] It follows that the application for judicial review must be dismissed. [23] The parties have not presented any question of general importance for certification, and I agree that there is none. JUDGMENT in IMM-4677-19 THE COURT’S JUDGMENT is as follows: 1. The application for judicial review is dismissed. 2. No question is certified. “Roger R.

Lafrenière” Judge Certified true translation This 18th day of August, 2020 Elizabeth Tan, Reviser FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-4677-19STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN RIGAN BENOIT v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATIONPLACE OF HEARING: BY VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN MONTRÉAL (QUEBEC) ANDOTTAWA (ONTARIO) DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 1, 2020

JUDGMENT AND REASONS: LAFRENIÈRE J. DATE OF REASONS: AUGUST 12, 2020 APPEARANCES : Jean-Pierre Chamoun FOR THE APPLICANT Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Chamoun & Constantin, Avocats Inc. Laval, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT