JAMAL ABDALLA SULEIMAN AL SALOUS Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2018 FC 990

Date: 20181003 Docket: IMM-4740-18 Citation: 2018 FC 990 Toronto, Ontario, October 3, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn BETWEEN: JAMAL ABDALLA SULEIMAN AL SALOUS Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent ORDER AND REASONS [1] The applicant is Palestinian and asks the Court to stay his removal from Canada, scheduled for October 4, at 1:00 p.m.

Underlyingthis motion is his application for leave and judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRAA] decision dated July 26,2018, and communicated to the Applicant on September 30, 2018. [2] I have read and considered the evidence and the submissions contained in the motion records filed by the parties, and the oralsubmissions of counsel at the Court in Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, October 3, 2018, on short notice.

Having considered andapplied the conjunctive tri-partite test in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988) (FCA), 86NR 302 (FCA), I have determined that this motion must be dismissed. These are my reasons. [3] The applicant first came to Canada with his wife on September 2001; they filed a refugee claim. Soon thereafter they returned toNablus, in the Northern West Bank, withdrawing their claim for protection.

In November 2016, the applicant applied for a temporaryvisitor visa to Canada which was refused as the visa officer was not satisfied that he would depart for Canada at the end of the authorizedstay. [4] The applicant flew from Jordan to Plattsburgh New York, landing on April 25, 2018, on a valid visa to enter the United States. Afriend picked him up and drove him across the border into Canada. As a result of his previously withdrawn refugee claim he is notentitled to advance a claim for protection.

He was offered a PRRA and submitted it on May 15, 2018. [5] The applicant submits that he has met all three parts of the test and the stay should issue. [6] In my view, he has not demonstrated on clear and convincing evidence that he will suffer irreparable harm in the period betweentoday and the date of hearing of his application if leave is granted.

The harm he alleges will occur is based on his assertion that he willbe targeted by either Israeli authorities or some unnamed Palestinians who he says believe he may be co-operating with the Israeliauthorities. [7] Contrary to the applicant’s submission at paragraph 79 of his memorandum of argument, Sallai v Canada (Citizenship andImmigration), [Sallai] does not stand for the proposition that he states,; namely, "“If the court accepts that [a] seriousissue has been raised in the underlying application … the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if returned to the West Bank without adetermination whether his risk has been properly assessed.”" Justice Southcott in Sallai at paragraph 4 states: "“I note that the existenceof a serious issue in the context of a PRRA decision does not necessarily establish irreparable harm (see Adams v Canada (Citizenshipand Immigration), ""2008 FC 256"" at para ""22"").

Rather each case must be determined based on its own facts [emphasis added].”" The judgment of Justice Shore in Adams at paragraphs 22 to 25 is instructive and reads as follows: Even if this Court determines that there is a serious issue with respect to the PRRA, it is not automatically determinative ofthe issue of irreparable harm. Rather, irreparable harm is still a matter to be weighed independently. (Onojaefe v. Canada(M.C.I.), IMM-2294-06 (May 10, 2006), paras. 11-16; Akyol v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC931, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1182 (QL), para. 8; Kazmi et al v.

Canada (S.G.C.), IMM-2126-04 (March 16, 2004).) The evidence in support of harm must be clear and non-speculative. (John v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 915 (QL); Wade v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No.579 (QL).) As noted in Gray v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J.

No. 31, 2004 FC 42, at paragraph 14,this Court will be reluctant to overturn, on an interlocutory motion, the findings of decision-makers, on evidence that hadbeen before the decisions-makers, who have considered risk, and to substitute its evaluation of risk without clear andconvincing evidence that the decision-makers were in error. (Reference is also made to Raza v. Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 42, [2004] F.C.J. No. 31 (QL).)

Moreover, to demonstrate irreparable harm, the Applicants must demonstrate that if removed from Canada, they would suffer irreparable harm between now and the time at which any positive decision is made on their application for leave and for judicial review . [underlining in original] [ 8 ] The material before the Court on this motion as to the possibility of risk to the applicant between his return and date of hearing if leave is granted cannot be said to be clear and convincing evidence. He says that he is at risk of harm by both the Israelis and the Palestinians, each being suspicious of him.

The PRAA decision-maker captures the essence of his alleged risk as follows: The applicant stated that he had been threatened by Palestinian strangers accusing him of speaking to Jewish authorities. Two weeks before he came to Canada and the Israeli army came to Nablus and the Palestinians started attacking the soldiers. The Jewish army called the applicant many times and pressured him to give information about the Palestinian groups that were involved in the attack. The applicant did not give any names but they kept pressuring him to confess thinking that I was hiding information.

At the same time Palestinian strangers started observing me saying I was a traitor, spy and collaborating with the Israeli occupation. [ 9 ] In his affidavit filed in support of this motion he swears: " “Palestinians from my own city threatened to take my life.” " But he provides no detail of the nature of these treats, the timing, the reasons given, or any other detail sufficient for the Court or any decision- maker to assign them much if any weight. This is not " “clear and convincing evidence” " of likely harm. For this reason, the motion cannot succeed.

ORDER IN IMM-4740-18 THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion for a stay of the execution of the removal of the applicant from Canada scheduled for October 4, 2018, is dismissed. “Russel W. Zinn” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-4740-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMAL ABDALLA SULEIMAN AL SALOUS v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 3, 2018 ORDER AND REASONS: ZINN J.

DATED: OCTOBER 3, 2018 APPEARANCES : Talia Joundi For The Applicant Erin Estok For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Poulton Law Office Professional Corporation Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent