Toronto, Ontario, June 20, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Amjad Qalawi is a Jordanian citizen. He sought refugee protection in this country based upon his fear of members of a rival family, who allegedly wanted to kill him because he had dishonoured their female relative by having engaged in an illicit relationship with her.
[2] Although the Board found that no single negative credibility finding was sufficient, by itself, to undermine Mr. Qalawi’s claim, the Board nevertheless found that his story lacked credibility, when viewed in its entirety.
[3] Mr. Qalawi now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision, asserting that a number of the Board’s negative credibility findings were patently unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, I agree, and as a consequence, the application will be allowed.
Background
[4] Mr. Qalawi says that while he was attending university in Jordan, he became involved in a clandestine sexual relationship with a girl named Faten Tahar El Edwan. The couple planned to marry after they had each completed their education.
[5] When Faten completed her studies, her family began pressuring her to marry a suitor chosen by the family. Unwilling to marry this man, she confessed to her family that she had been involved in an intimate relationship with Mr. Qalawi, which had resulted in her having had an abortion. Her admission enraged her family.
[6] In the meantime, Mr. Qalawi had come to Canada to continue his studies. Mr. Qalawi’s father contacted him in Canada and told him that he should not return to Jordan, as Faten’s relatives had threatened to kill him for having dishonoured their family.
[7] Mr. Qalawi’s father then contacted Faten’s family in order to discuss a possible resolution to the problem, and it was ultimately agreed by the elders and sheiks of both Mr. Qalawi’s and Faten’s respective tribes that Mr. Qalawi would return to Jordan and marry Faten.
[8] Mr. Qalawi purchased a plane ticket for his return to Jordan. He was scheduled to leave Canada for Jordan on June 28, 2005. However, shortly before his departure, two of Faten’s brothers and a cousin announced that they were rejecting the agreement, telling Mr. Qalawi’s father that they would kill his son if he were to return to Jordan. As a consequence, Mr. Qalawi decided to remain in Canada and seek refugee protection.
[9] Faten’s fate is not known.
Analysis
[10] One of the reasons given by the Board for finding Mr. Qalawi’s story not to be credible was that the date on which he purchased his ticket to return to Jordan was two days earlier than the date on which the written agreement between the two families was signed. According to the Board, it was inconceivable that Mr. Qalawi would purchase a ticket before he was satisfied that an agreement had in fact been reached.
[11] Mr. Qalawi explained that his father had contacted him and had advised him that an agreement had been reached between the two families, and that he should return to Jordan to marry Faten. While the agreement was not immediately reduced to writing, Mr. Qalawi says that he relied upon the fact that an agreement had in fact been reached to plan his return to Jordan, in order to deliver on his part of the bargain. The Board does not appear to have appreciated this explanation, as it is not specifically addressed in the decision.
[12] The Board also found that the negotiation process described by Mr. Qalawi was not referred to in his Personal Information Form (or “PIF”). Given that this was a central element of Mr. Qalawi’s story, this was, in the Board’s view, a material omission going to the heart of his claim, calling his credibility into question.
[13] A review of Mr. Qalawi’s PIF, the narrative portion of which is quite brief, discloses that he did mention that after the couple’s relationship became known, his father tried to appease Faten’s family, offering to have Mr. Qalawi return to Jordan, and marry Faten, and that such a resolution was ultimately agreed to. While Mr. Qalawi undoubtedly provided greater detail regarding the negotiations in his oral testimony, I am not persuaded that there was a material omission from his PIF of the sort identified by the Board.
[14] Faten’s family lived in Amman. Her father was a successful businessman, and some of her brothers had evidently attended university. As such, the Board found that the family did not fit the profile of one whose members would be involved in an honour killing.
[15] However, the documentary evidence before the Board makes specific reference to the fact that honour killings are not confined to poor rural families, but occur in wealthy urban families as well. While the Board is presumed to have considered all of the evidence before it, this evidence runs directly counter to the Board’s conclusion, and should have been addressed: Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425, 157 F.T.R. 35 at ¶14 – 17.
[16] The Board also did not accept that Faten’s brothers and cousin would threaten to kill Mr. Qalawi, given that an agreement had allegedly been entered into between the families for Faten to marry him. Here again, there was documentary evidence before the Board of several cases where honour killings were carried out after pledges were signed by male family members promising not to harm errant individuals. In my view, this evidence should have been addressed by the Board, given that it runs contrary to the Board’s conclusion.
[17] I am satisfied that a number of the Board’s other negative credibility findings were not patently unreasonable. However, given the Board’s statement that it was the cumulative effect of all of the negative findings that led to its conclusion that Mr. Qalawi’s overall story was not credible, it is not possible to ascertain what effect the findings that I have found to have been made in error would have had on the Board’s analysis and on its ultimate conclusion.
[18] That is, it cannot safely be concluded that the Board would have come to the same conclusion, had it not made the impugned findings. As a consequence, the application will be allowed.
Certification
[19] Neither party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for judicial review is allowed, and the matter is remitted to a different panel of the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination; and
2. No serious question of general importance is certified.
“Anne Mactavish”
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4999-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: AMJAD M. S. QALAWI v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 19, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Neil Cohen FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Michael Butterfield FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Neil Cohen
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT