Date: 20040122
Docket: IMM-5772-03
Citation: 2004 FC 98
Toronto, Ontario, January 22nd, 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lemieux
BETWEEN:
LARA HANNA SLEIMEN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Lara Hanna Sleimen is 20 years old Christian woman from Lebanon who fled her country on July 23rd, 2002, and whose refugee claim was denied by a June 23rd, 2003 decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "tribunal").
[2] The Applicant ably represented herself at the hearing of her judicial review application.
[3] In argument, she stated her review of the transcript revealed an important error in interpretation, but I find that error had no consequence on the proceeding because the tribunal did not draw any adverse credibility findings against her related to the issue under discussion.
[4] Nor did the tribunal doubt her subjective fear spawned by the receipt of two death threat letters unsigned, undated from an unidentified source(s) which the Applicant attributes to an extremist Muslim religious group in her words "such as Hezbollah".
[5] These letters were received while she was a first year University student in Saïda ("Sidon") located in southern Lebanon next door to the largest Palestinian refugee camp in that country. The student body at the university is 98% Muslim.
[6] She testified in student discussions she expressed political views which did not please the Muslim students (views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the sentences imposed on former SLA members and on the tragic event of September 11).
[7] The first death threat came after she closed the classroom window because the Muslim prayers from the mosque where preventing her hearing the lecturer. This act caused consternation amongst her fellow Muslim students.
[8] The second death threat letter came after she participated in a public demonstration showing sympathy to America.
[9] She produced recent documentary evidence which reported on the bombing of Orthodox or Maronite churches, the killing for religious reasons of 8 UNESCO (7 of them Christians) workers by A. Mansour, a Shite Muslim, the murder in Sidon of Bonnie Weatherall, a 31 years old U.S. missionary nurse. Other documents produced by the Applicant told of assassinations of former members of the Lebanese army, the killing of a student leader, bombings of nightclubs and liquor stores, all indices according to the Applicant of the political and religious fanaticism existing in that country.
[10] The tribunal took a different view of the documentary evidence recognizing, however, that sectarian violence existed. The relevant portion of the tribunal's finding is:
In his submissions, counsel referred to the case of a man who had been arrested and mistreated by the Hezbollah because of challenging a Hezbollah member. The panel is of the opinion that such occurrence is an exception rather then being the norm. The preponderance of the documentary evidence suggests that ordinary citizens, such as the claimant, would not be bothered by the Hezbollah or any other fanatic groups in Lebanon. The panel notes that the claimant does not posses a political or religious profile, which could make her the target of threat and intimidation by radical groups. Her allegations, that she was targeted by fanatic Muslims because of closing the window during the prayers or because of attending a pro American demonstration, are not supportable by the content of the documentary evidence. Moreover, her allegation that she would be subjected to threat and intimidation because of being related to her brother-in-law who was a member of the "South Lebanese Army" is also not supported by the content of the documentary evidence, ...
[11] Prior to making this finding the tribunal cited documentary evidence that "there have been no reports of Hezbollah harassing or threatening people who publicly disagree with its policies... ...there have been no known instances where the government has had to provide protection to ordinary citizens because they were afraid of Hezbollah."
[12] In sum, the tribunal concluded that while the Applicant had a subjective fear of returning to Lebanon that fear was not objectively proven and as a result found she did not have a well founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground nor was she in need of protection because there did not exist any substantial grounds to believe she would be personally subjected to danger of torture, nor a serious possibility of a risk to her life or to cruel or unusual punishment.
[13] The Applicant challenged the tribunal's decision on a number of grounds including that it:
1. Mentioned just one incident and failed to mention all of the confrontations that happened to her at university.
2. Failed to appreciate Sidon was next door to the largest Palestinian refugee camp from where terrorists organizations operate with impunity.
3. Got some dates wrong.
4. Misconstrued the basis of her fear which is not necessarily of Hezbollah but of religious fanatics such as Mansour and the killer of Bonnie Weatherall.
5. Misinterpreted the evidence by finding that ordinary civilians are not targets of fanatics.
[14] The Applicant is correct the tribunal got some dates wrong, but these two errors did not impact on the tribunal's decision. These errors would have related to lack of credibility which was not an issue before the tribunal.
[15] I have examined the transcript of the hearing at which the Applicant testified and all of the documentary evidence produced in the certified tribunal record.
[16] On the basis of that evidence I cannot conclude the tribunal findings where perverse or capricious or made without regard for the evidence before it. There was no misinterpretation of the evidence.
[17] The evidence relied upon by the tribunal was sufficient to enable it to conclude that a person with her profile would not be personally targeted by religious fanatics in Lebanon and that she would not be at greater risk than the members of the general population.
[18] In essence what the Applicant is asking the Court to do is to re-weight the evidence before the tribunal which the Supreme Court of Canada in recent jurisprudence has again emphasised should not be done by a reviewing Court.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this judicial review application is dismissed. The Respondent proposes no certified question. The Applicant has until January 30th, 2004, to propose one or more certified questions. The Respondent is to comment by Wednesday, February 4th, 2004.
"François Lemieux"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-5772-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: LARA HANNA SLEIMEN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 20, 2004
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LEMIEUX J.
DATED: JANUARY 22, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Ms. Lara Hanna Sleimen FOR THE APPLICANT (on her own behalf)
Mr. Jamie Todd
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lara Hanna Sleimen
Mississauga, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT (on her own behalf)
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20040122
Docket: IMM-5772-03
BETWEEN:
LARA HANNA SLEIMEN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER