Date: 20050617
Docket: IMM-9327-04
Citation: 2005 FC 848
BETWEEN:
JACQUES HAYEK &
FADI MOUSSALLY
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated October 6, 2004, wherein the Board found the applicants, who are citizens of Lebanon, not to be Convention refugees or "persons in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] It is clear from the Board's decision that the applicants' alleged fear for their safety in Lebanon was not supported by the documentary evidence and that the applicants did not establish the objective component of their claim (see Kante v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 525 (T.D.) (QL) and Sinora v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 725 (C.A.) (QL)). The applicants do not have the profiles of individuals who are targeted in Lebanon, nor are they politically active. They did not participate in the elections, except to vote, and never participated in student or Lebanese Forces demonstrations. It is also important to note that the applicants did not come to Canada because they feared the Lebanese authorities, but in order to participate in World Youth Day. All of these reasons were cited by the Board in its decision and I do not consider they are unreasonable conclusions.
[3] Furthermore, the documentary proof, which is presumed to have been considered in its entirety by the Board, indicates that an individual who has had contact with the Lebanese Forces is not at risk today and will not be harassed or sought out by the Hezbollah. It also suggests that the situation of supporters of the Lebanese Forces has ameliorated significantly over recent years, and no candidates were harassed or mistreated during the elections. There is also no proof to suggest that there are systematic arrests of Christians.
[4] Based on the above, I am not convinced that the applicants have demonstrated that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7).
[5] The applicants submit that the Board erred in its decision to hold the hearing of both parties together because each party filed his own Personal Information Form and submissions. They also submit that the fact that they made their claim at the same time or came to Canada together on the same trip, does not give rise to a joinder of cases where it could severely prejudice either one of the persons involved. On the other hand, the respondent submits that the Board was well-founded in joining both hearings since the applicants made significant references to each other in their respective written narratives and since the applicants were interrogated separately at the hearing (see Zewedu v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1369 (T.D.) (QL)). I believe it was appropriate for the Board to consider that a junction of the applicants' claims would permit it to efficiently dispose of them. The applicants make vague allegations that they would have suffered a prejudice from this junction, but they do not provide any concrete examples of this prejudice. Furthermore, the transcript of the hearing before the Board does not show any objection was made in that regard by former counsel for the applicants.
[6] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 17, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-9327-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: JACQUES HAYEK & FADI MOUSSALLY v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 18, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: June 17, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Harry Blank FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. Mario Blanchard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Harry Blank FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada