Ramoul et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 475 F.T.R. 8 (FC)

• Judge: LeBlanc, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 475 F.T.R. 8 (FC);2015 FC 109

Ramoul v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 475 F.T.R. 8 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.011

Salim Ramoul, Lamia Boukerma, Mohamed Salah Ramoul, Mohamed Islem Ramoul and Mohamed Rani Ramoul (demandeurs) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration (défendeur)

(IMM-2735-14; 2015 CF 109; 2015 FC 109)

Indexed As: Ramoul et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

LeBlanc, J.

January 28, 2015.

Summary:

Ramoul and his family (the applicants) feared reprisals from an influential businessman who was the subject of a tax audit initiated by the directorate headed by Ramoul when he was employed by the Algerian government agency tasked with tax collection. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the applicants' claim for refugee protection on the basis that they had failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that Algeria would be capable of ensuring their protection. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 1323.2

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugee and persons in need of protection - Persecution - Protection of country of nationality or citizenship (internal flight alternative) - Ramoul and his family (the applicants) feared reprisals from an influential businessman who was the subject of a tax audit initiated by the directorate headed by Ramoul when he was employed by the Algerian government agency tasked with tax collection - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the applicants' claim for refugee protection on the basis that they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that Algeria would be capable of ensuring their protection - The applicants applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The applicants made no attempt to seek the protection of the Algerian state - They justified their reluctance to do so by a lack of confidence in Algerian institutions and by the influence that their agents of persecution appeared capable of exercising over those institutions - Doubting the effectiveness of state protection without reasonably testing it, or simply asserting a subjective reluctance to engage the state, did not rebut the presumption of state protection - Such reluctance had to be objectively reasonable - The onus was on the applicants to provide clear and convincing evidence of their inability to obtain adequate protection from the Algerian state - That inability had to be objectively reasonable and not purely subjective - The RPD found that this burden had not been met - That conclusion was reasonable.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 1].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 1].

Rusznyak et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 99; 2014 FC 255, refd to. [para. 1].

Ruszo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 440 F.T.R. 106; 2013 FC 1004, refd to. [para. 1].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 4].

Amrane v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 424 F.T.R. 255; 2013 FC 12, refd to. [para. 5].

Bagui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 769; 2012 FC 1527, refd to. [para. 5].

Baraka v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 672; 2012 FC 1118, refd to. [para. 5].

Del Rio Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 874; 2008 FC 1214, refd to. [para. 8].

Kim et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 673; 2005 FC 1126, refd to. [para. 8].

Huntley v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 233; 2014 FC 573, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

Mélanie Calisto Azevedo, for the applicants;

Sonia Bédard, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Mélanie Calisto Azevedo, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicants;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 26, 2015, at Montreal, Quebec, before LeBlanc, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on January 28, 2015.