Digests

Kadoura v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-4835-02

2003 FC 1057, Martineau J.

10/9/03

12 pp.

Judicial review of Refugee Protection Division of Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) decision that applicant not "Convention Refugee" or "person in need of protection" under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Act), ss. 96, 97--Applicant, stateless person of Palestinian origin, born on July 28, 1981, in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.)--His parents, also stateless, lived in Lebanon before going to U.A.E., where applicant's father found work--First, with respect to IRB's findings on issue of applicant's habitual residence, under ss. 96(b), 97(1)(a), terms "refugee" and "person in need of protection" apply in particular to persons without country of nationality and finding themselves outside country of their "former habitual residence"--According to case law of this Court, if claimant resided in more than one country, not necessary that he prove persecuted in each of those countries--However, claimant must show was persecuted in at least one of these countries and that unable or unwilling to return to countries where had his habitual residence--Requirement of "habitual residence" presupposing existence of relationship with State comparable to that which exists between citizen and country of nationality--Therefore situation such that stateless person admitted into given country with view to establishing continuous residence there for certain time, without requiring minimum period of residence --Definition of "country of habitual residence" should not be so unduly restrictive as to pre-empt providing shelter to stateless person who has demonstrated well-founded fear of persecution on any of grounds listed in Convention-- Applicant not having to be legally able to return to country of habitual residence--Denial of right to return, in fact, may in itself constitute act of persecution by State--Conceded that U.A.E. "habitual residence" of applicant--But what about Lebanon?--Herein, Board finding that applicant cannot raise reasonable fear of persecution with respect to Lebanon as not country where applicant had his "habitual residence" seems reasonable under circumstances--In fact, according to evidence in record, applicant born in U.A.E. where always lived and where completed all of his pre-university studies--His parents still live in U.A.E. with his brother and sister--Applicant did not habitually reside in Lebanon as father then working in U.A.E--Finally, travel documents and other documents in applicant's possession issued by Lebanese authorities not conclusive--Even if applicant has right to reside in Lebanon, has never actually resided there--As for fear of persecution, denying right to return to country can in itself amount to act of persecution--Here, IRB's finding to effect that applicant had not established serious possibility that would be persecuted in country of his habitual residence (U.A.E.) supported by evidence in record and also seems to be reasonable under circumstances--IRB could reasonably find that legal restrictions imposed by U.A.E. did not breach any of applicant's fundamental rights and did not constitute persecution--Applicant admitted that could still return to his country of habitual residence, U.A.E., but that would only be able to obtain temporary visitor's visa--Direct consequence of decision made voluntarily by applicant, who preferred to leave U.A.E. to come and study in Canada--Cancellation or non-issuance of applicant's residence permit not, therefore, constituting act of persecution--Conditions imposed on applicant have no connection with any of grounds listed in Convention--Consequently, no grounds to intervene herein-- Application for judicial review dismissed--Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 , ss. 96, 97.