AMAR ABDALLA AHMED IBRAHIM Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2023 FC 705

Date: 20230519 Docket: IMM-6770-20 Citation: 2023 FC 705 Ottawa, Ontario, May 19, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Zinn BETWEEN:AMAR ABDALLA AHMED IBRAHIMApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent ORDER AND REASONS [1] The Applicant moves for an Order anonymizing the style of cause, marking as confidential any information in the judgment thatissued September 15, 2022 [Ibrahim v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1299] that might reasonably result in theApplicant and/or his family members being identified, and sealing the Court record pursuant to Rule 151(1) of the Federal Courts Rules,SOR/98-106. [2] This motion is filed pursuant to Rule 369 and has been considered based on the written materials filed by the parties. [3] The Applicant is a citizen of Sudan.

He, his spouse, and U.S. born children fled to Canada on April 2, 2018, and sought refugeeprotection. The Applicant was reported for inadmissibility pursuant to paragraphs 34(1)(

a) and (

f) of the Immigration and RefugeeProtection Act, SC 2001, c 27. By decision of December 15, 2020, the Applicant was found inadmissible on those grounds anddeportation orders were issued. [4] The Applicant’s spouse was found to be a Convention refugee by the Refugee Appeal Division on November 2, 2021. TheApplicant’s application for judicial review was dismissed by this Court on September 15, 2022, and it is that judgment that he seeks tohave anonymized. [5] In Sierra Club of Canada v Canada (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 41 at para 53, the Supreme Court of Canada articulated a two-part test to determine if a confidentiality order should be granted: (

a) such an order is necessary in order to prevent a serious risk to an important interest, including a commercial interest, inthe context of litigation because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and (

b) the salutary effects of the confidentiality order, including the effects on the right of civil litigants to a fair trial, outweighits deleterious effects, including the effects on the right to free expression, which in this context includes the public interestin open and accessible court proceedings. [6] The Applicant submits that he meets the first part of the test because the Court record includes his allegations of espionage andtorture by the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service [NISS], his sworn evidence that he disobeyed the orders of the NISS,and the finding that he was a member of the NISS engaged in espionage for them.

He says that should this information end up in thehands of Sudanese authorities or armed groups, there is a real possibility that it would expose the Applicant and his family to risk ofpersecution or other serious physical harm. [7] He submits that the second part of the test is also met because the confidentiality order would provide a significant benefit byprotecting the physical safety and privacy interests of him and his family and it will have no adverse impact on the Canada’s litigationinterests, as the litigation is complete. [8] The Respondent opposes the motion and I agree with the Respondent, largely for the reasons stated in its memorandum, that the testhas not been met.

It must be kept front of mind that the order sought is exceptional as it runs contrary to the principle of the openness ofjustice and its processes. It is only made in rare and extreme cases where necessary "“to prevent a serious risk to an important interest …because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent the risk.”" [9] The Respondent accurately summarizes the Applicant’s evidence on the first part of the test as follows: The Applicant’s evidence supporting his motion is that in January 2023 he “came to understand” that Justice Little’sdecision is publicly available on the website.

He then “…became concerned about the risks this might pose tomyself should I ultimately be forced to return to Sudan, and to my family members there at present, as well as to my wifeand children in the future.” The Applicant continues in his affidavit: “I worried also that my family and I [would] besubjected to gossip, marginalization and even bullying by members of the Sudanese community if this information becameknown here.” The Applicant also alleges that he and his family are even more worried about the publicly available details ofhis case given the worsening security situation in Sudan since April 2023. [10] I agree with the Respondent that this evidence does not establish a real and substantial risk.

It is speculative based on the facts andevidence before the Court. The Applicant has an outstanding Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application, so it is speculative to conclude

that he will be returned to Sudan and thereby be put at risk. His wife has refugee status in Canada and his children are citizens of the United States, so they will not be required to go to Sudan. With respect to other family members in Sudan, there is no evidence that authorities mistreated them since the Applicant’s alleged mistreatment or escape from Sudan. Similarly, there is no evidence of any risk from persons in Canada. [ 11 ] It is also noted that courts are reluctant to issue confidentiality orders when the information has been public for some time.

As my Grandfather would say, the Applicant is seeking to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. [ 12 ] The application for leave and for judicial review was filed on December 30, 2020; the Application Record, which includes the decision under review and other documents regarding the Applicant’s history, was filed on March 10, 2021; and Justice Little’s decision has been publicly available since on or about September 15, 2022. Since the Applicant filed his Application Record more than two years ago, the information he now seeks to keep confidential has been publicly available.

There is no evidence that it has been accessed by any of the alleged agents of persecution, or would probably be so accessed, if he were to return to Sudan. [ 13 ] The alleged harm to the Applicant must be weighed against the open court principle, which is so fundamental to Canadian justice. The Applicant has failed to tip the balance in his favour and this motion must be dismissed. ORDER in IMM-6770-20 THIS COURT ORDERS that this motion is dismissed. "Russel W.

Zinn" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6770-20 STYLE OF CAUSE: AMAR ABDALLA AHMED IBRAHIM v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: ZINN J. DATED: may 19, 2023 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS : Andrew Brouwer For The Applicant Gregory George For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Refugee Law Office Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant

Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent