Alami v. Alami, 2021 ONSC 8426

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-255-1

DATE: 2021/12/22

RE: Tawab Khan Alami Applicant

AND

Somaya Alami Respondent

BEFORE: Justice Engelking

COUNSEL: Annemarie Roodal for the Applicant

Diana Aoun for the Respondent

HEARD: October 22, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

1This is Mr. Alami’s application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in which he seeks an order that his sons, S.A. born in 2012 (now 9) and B.A. born in 2015 (now 6) be returned to London, United Kingdom (“U.K.”).

2At the commencement of the hearing, Ms. Alami sought an adjournment. I gave the following oral reasons on her adjournment request:

The Respondent, Ms. Alami, seeks an adjournment of the hearing of Mr. Alami’s application pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, in which he seeks a finding that the parties two children, S. and B., were wrongfully removed from their habitual residence in London, England, and an order that they be returned. The grounds for Ms. Alami’s adjournment request are two: first, she submits that the hearing should be adjourned to a date subsequent to the children’s refugee hearing which is scheduled for January 14, 2022 and that this court is bound by the ONCA case of M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E, 2020 ONCA 486, in this regard. Second, she alleges that in his reply affidavit of October 18, 2021, Mr. Alami has provided new evidence or evidence which is not strictly in reply to Ms. Alami’s evidence, to which she seeks the opportunity to respond.

Mr. Alami is opposing the request for an adjournment of the hearing in its’ entirety. He is proposing that the court can hear the application on the issues of habitual residence and wrongful removal of the children, and, if necessary, adjourn the portion of the hearing dealing with whether the children should be ordered to return to the UK until after their refugee hearing has been dealt with in January. Mr. Alami submits further that the “new” evidence to which Ms. Alami objects is not relevant to the issues of habitual residence or wrongful removal. He has agreed, moreover, to not rely on the Affidavit on Ms. Qazi sworn on October 14, 2021, or any reference to Ms. Alami’s alleged affair for the purposes of today’s hearing.

I will deal with each argument in turn.

First, M.A.A. deals with the effect of a refugee claim on an application seeking the return of children to a state from which they were removed. It restates the “principle of non-refoulement” as set out in s. 115(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, that a protected person is not to be removed from Canada where he or she would be at risk of persecution of varying types. At paragraph 63, the court notes that the principle of non-refoulement “applies not only to recognized refugees, but also to asylum seekers whose status has not yet been determined.” At paragraph 64, the court determines that a child ordered to return to the place from which asylum is sought loses his or her rights to asylum, as a refugee claim is not permitted to continue once a person is in his or her home country. The court also relies on art. 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to emphasize children’s rights to receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance.

At paragraph 66, the ONCA refers to the English case of F.E. v. Y.E., [2017] EWHC 2165 (Fam), which particularly states: “Equally, it is impossible for a return order to be made while an asylum claim is pending” [Emphasis added by the ONCA].

However, in M.A.A. the court stated at paragraph 70 that it was the return order under s. 40(3) of the CLRA that would engage the non-refoulement principles, not the s. 23 analysis. In paragraph 72, the court found that a return order under s. 40(3) of the CLRA must not be made in the face of a pending refugee claim, but left to another day how the court should proceed if a return order to a signatory country was sought under the Convention in the face of a pending refugee claim. That day appears to have come.

The ONCA found at paragraph 78, that a court could make a conclusion on the serious harm test in s. 23 of the CLRA in the face of a pending refugee claim, which conclusion it might need to revisit after the claim has been determined. What the court could not do is order the return under s. 40 before the refugee claim is resolved. In paragraph 80, the court found that it was an error to order the return of the children (in that case to Kuwait) pending the determination of their refugee claim.

Mr. Alami relies on the case of Dahir v. Soubaneh, of the 3^rd^ Circuit Court of Davison County at Nashville, Tennessee, No. 13 D 2737, to emphasize this court’s obligation to act expeditiously in cases of this nature. In Dahir, the US court found that Canada had failed to provide timely due process in a wrongful removal case and that such failure constituted a violation of the human rights of the father and the child. Mr. Alami emphasizes Canada’s obligations under Articles 1, 2 and 11 of the Hague Convention to act expeditiously in this matter.

With respect to Ms. Alami’s claim that Mr. Alami has provided new evidence, or evidence which is not in reply to her evidence, in his reply affidavit of October 18, 2021, I have reviewed the paragraphs identified (those being 60, 61, 79 and 80, as well as references to Ms. Alami’s alleged affair) and I find that the evidence contained therein is either in reply to Ms. Alami’s evidence or is irrelevant for the purposes of determining habitual residence. Paragraphs 60 and 61 are, for example, in direct reply to Ms. Alami indicating that Mr. Alami forbade her to work. Paragraphs 79 and 80 are in reply to Ms. Alami’s evidence regarding alleged coercion from Mr. Alami around her UK visa application. Mr. Alami’s evidence is that not only was he assisting her to obtain a UK visa, he also assisted her to obtain a US visa to attend Disneyland. In regard to references to Ms. Alami’s alleged affair, first, Mr. Alami has indicated he is not relying upon such, and second, they are, in my view irrelevant. Mr. Alami may have formed a belief about Ms. Alami’s reasons for returning to Canada, but his belief is not relevant to the factual determinations to be made by this court.

Based on both the reasoning in M.M.A., and this court’s obligations as outlined in the Convention, particularly art. 11, I am of the view that Mr. Alami’s proposal to have a hearing on the issues of habitual residence and wrongful removal, and to defer the second stage of the hearing, i.e. whether there is an exception which applies to the children’s “immediate” return to the requesting country, if habitual residence and wrongful removal are established, to a date after the children’s refugee claim has been concluded is a reasonable one. Because Hague Convention application cases have been refined by Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev, 2018 SCC 16 and Ludwig v. Ludwig, 2019 ONCA 680 to be essentially considered in two stages, the first being the determination of habitual residence and wrongful removal and the second being whether one the five exceptions apply to the return of a child to the requesting state, it appears to me to be an effective use of court time to conduct a hearing on the first stage, and leave the second stage, if necessary, to be done after the children’s refugee hearing is completed. Additionally, as has been submitted by Mr. Alami, the second stage analysis will be rendered unnecessary if the children’s habitual residence is found to be Canada.

I will therefore today hear the application on the issues of habitual residence and wrongful removal.

3This is, therefore, my decision on the issues of habitual residence and wrongful removal of the children.

4For the following reasons, I find that the children were habitually resident in London, U.K. prior to their wrongful removal, which occurred on July 6, 2019.

Background Facts

5The parties were married on September 28, 2010 in Kabul, Afghanistan. Two children were born of the marriage in Afghanistan, S. and B. The parties separated on July 6, 2019.

6The children and Mr. Alawi have duel Afghan and British citizenship. Ms. Alami has Afghan citizenship.

7Mr. Alami began working for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Afghanistan in 2012. He was posted as an Afghan diplomat (second Secretary) at the Afghanistan Embassy in Ottawa in July of 2016. His positing was for the period of July 2016 to June 30, 2019. As such, Mr. Alami, Ms. Alami and the children had diplomatic Canadian visas/passports which were expiring on July 31, 2019.

8Around April of 2019, Mr. Alami was notified that his posting was not being extended beyond its original end date of June 30, 2019, and that he was to be posted back to Afghanistan upon its completion.

9According to Mr. Alami, the parties discussed relocating permanently to London, U.K., as they did not want the children to grow up in Afghanistan, particularly B., who is diagnosed as autistic and would lack necessary services in Afghanistan. Additionally, Ms. Alami’s brother, two maternal uncles and a number of her cousins live in London, and it was thought that they would be of support to Ms. Alami and the family. According to Ms. Alami, the parties agreed only to a short visit to London, and a return to Canada …

10On May 3, 2019, Mr. Alami sent an email to the landlord of the family’s rental accommodation in Ottawa, which was paid for by the Afghanistan Embassy, to notify her that their tenancy would be ending on June 30, 2019.

11Ms. Alami applied for a UK visa to travel to London, though she indicates that she was either coerced or tricked into doing so by Mr. Alami. The visa was ultimately issued in her diplomatic passport.

12The family traveled to London on May 15, 2019 and settled in a rented flat in the city. The children were registered to attend Hobbayne Primary School in Hanwell, S. in second year class and B. in the daycare program. According to Mr. Alami, both parents brought B. to his first day of school on June 3, 2019. According to Ms. Alami, Mr. Alami took the children to school without her prior knowledge or consent. B. attended the school from June 3, 2019 to July 5, 2019, and S. attended from June 5, 2019 to July 5, 2019.

13On May 17 or 18, 2019, Mr. and Ms. Alami met with an immigration lawyer in London, Rehana Ahmed, for advice regarding next steps for Ms. Alami to gain residency status in the U.K. and to learn how long it would take her to obtain U.K. citizenship.

14Mr. Alami also registered the children with the National Health Service (NHS) and on June 11, 2019, S. and B. were provided with NHS numbers and confirmed to be registered as patients with the Hanwell Health Centre.

15From June 11, 2019 to July 1, 2019, Mr. Alami returned to Ottawa to wrap up his posting. While there, Ms. Alami continued to take the children to school in London. On June 14, 2019, Mr. Alami returned the licence plate for the car the family used in Canada to Service Ontario. On July 1, 2019, he returned to London.

16While in Ottawa, although Mr. Alami had taken his and Ms. Alami’s diplomatic ID cards which were issued by Global Affairs Canada with him, he neglected to return them to Global Affairs. After his return to London, Mr. Alami was contacted by the first secretary, charges d’affairs at the Afghanistan Embassy on or about July 3, 2019 and notified that he was required to return the diplomatic ID cards either in person or by post to the Canadian Embassy in London. Mr. Alami then realized that Ms. Alami’s diplomatic ID card was no longer in his wallet. He asked Ms. Alami to give it back to him, but she denied taking it or having it in her possession.

17On July 6, 2019, without the knowledge of Mr. Alami, Ms. Alami left London for Canada with the children. In the evening of July 6, 2019, Mr. Alami received a telephone call from an Immigration Officer from the Montreal airport informing him that his children were in Canada. Mr. Alami reported the matter to the London Police, giving them a full statement on July 19, 2019. Subsequently, Ms. Alami was charged with child abduction, and her criminal matter remains outstanding.

18Mr. Alami engaged the Internal Child Abduction Unit for the Central Authority for England and Wales (“London Central Authority”), and on August 12, 2019, the London Central Authority wrote to the Quebec Central Authority enclosing Mr. Alami’s request for the return of the children to the U.K. The Central Authority in Quebec transferred the matter to the Central Authority for Ontario, as Ms. Alami had moved to Ottawa with the children. On October 7, 2019, the Central Authority for Ontario wrote to Ms. Alami requesting that she voluntarily return the children to the U.K.

19In October of 2019, Mr. Alami’s application with Legal Aid Ontario was refused, and he could not afford to retain private counsel. In June of 2020, Mr. Alami reapplied for legal aid and was approved. He then retained counsel and commenced his application under the Hague Convention.

20In the interim, Ms. Alami applied to Canada for refugee protection for herself and the children. Although their applications were originally made together, the children’s have since been made independently and are scheduled for a hearing on January 14, 2022. Ms. Alami’s application is suspended due to her outstanding criminal matter.

21Ms. Alami and the children have remained in Canada since July 6, 2019.

Analysis

22Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provide as follows:

Article 3

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where:

(a) It is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and

(b) At the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.

Article 4

The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in the Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.

23In Ludwig v. Ludwig, 2019 ONCA 680, at paragraph 23, the Ontario Court of Appeal endorsed a two-step approach to determining habitual residence. The first step is to determine when the alleged wrongful removal took place, and the second is to determine in which state the children were habitually resident immediately prior to the removal. All that is required at the first step is to fix a date to conduct the habitual residence analysis and that doing so does not imply a finding there has been a wrongful removal.¹

24In this case, there is no controversy about July 6, 2019 being the date upon which the children were removed from the U.K. to Canada. The issue to be determined in case is in which state were S. and B. habitually resident immediately prior to their removal on July 6, 2019.

25In Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev, 2018 SCC 16, the court adopted a hybrid model that combined parental intention and the circumstances of the children to the determination of habitual residence. In Ludwig, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained the purpose of this hybrid model is to determine the focal point of a child’s life by considering: a) the child’s links to and circumstances in country A; b) the circumstances of the child’s move from country A to country B, and: c) the child’s links to and circumstances in country B. In determining the focal point of the child’s life in this manner, the court is to consider factors such as, but not limited to, the child’s nationality, the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the child’s stay, circumstances of the parents, and parental intention.² The court is to consider the entirely of the child’s situation.

S. and B.’s links and circumstances in the U.K. (Country A)

26Mr. Alami’s position is that the parties permanently moved to London, England as of May 15, 2019, with the intention of remaining and raising their children there.

27Ms. Alami’s position is that she never had any intention to move to London, England. Her evidence is that she only intended to visit London with the children, and that she was tricked by Mr. Alami into going to England on the premise that it would not be permanent.

28Unfortunately, considering the evidence, Ms. Alami’s position does not make any sense.

29The family moved to England in May of 2019. The reason they did so is because their diplomatic status in Canada was ending, and because Mr. Alami and S. and B. are citizens of the U.K. They are entitled to live in England. They were, as of July 31, 2019, going to no longer be entitled to live in Canada. That Ms. Alami intended, even from as early as 2018, to apply for refugee status in Canada, does not change that.

30Ms. Alami alleges that Mr. Alami was physically, emotionally and psychologically abusive to her throughout their relationship. Her evidence is that she had consulted with a Canadian lawyer in 2018 about the possibility of obtaining a divorce from Mr. Alami. As a result of this consult, Ms. Alami “decided to wait until the end of the diplomatic visa to file for divorce and asylum.”³

31Nevertheless, Ms. Alami travelled to the UK with Mr. Alami and the children on May 15, 2019. In order to do so, she applied for a U.K. visa, which she asserts she did as a result of a physical assault and threat of further force by Mr. Alami.⁴ Ms. Alami states in her affidavit that “as part of the deal of signing the UK visitor visa form, Taweb agreed that I would only visit the UK with the children for a short visit and if I did not want to live in the UK, I would return with the children to Ottawa.”

32Ms. Alami’s evidence in support of this is that Mr. Alami bought return tickets to London which were for May 15, 2019, returning on June 5, 2019, that they still had a furnished apartment and a car in Ottawa, and that Mr. Alami was still employed in Ottawa at the time of their departure.

33Mr. Alami’s evidence is that the car’s licence plates were turned in to Service Ontario on June 14, 2019 and the apartment was given up (in May) as of June 30, 2019. On July 6, 2019, the day of Ms. Alami and the children’s departure, neither were any longer available to them. Additionally, he indicates that the tickets were return tickets because Ms. Alami was entering England on a six months visitor’s visa on her Afghani passport and having a return ticket would render her entry easier. Additionally, he indicates that Ms. Alami was aware that he was going to return to Canada to wrap up his posting.

34Mr. Alami’s further evidence is that Ms. Alami applied for her U.K. Visa online, of her own accord, and that he did not assault, force or threaten her to sign it.⁵ Indeed, he does not know when she signed it and Ms. Alami attended an interview at the U.K. visa Application Centre on her own. The visa was issued in her diplomatic passport approximately one week after she submitted her documentation at the Centre.

35Mr. Alami denies that he had any agreement with Ms. Alami that she would only visit the U.K. and return to Ottawa with the children if she did not like it. His evidence is that such an agreement was not possible as neither he nor any of the family members had any immigration status to remain in Canada after the end of his posting.

36Although it was very recent in time from the removal, the evidence, in my view, supports that S. and B. moved with their parents to London, England. Mr. Alami’s posting in Ottawa, Ontario was done as of June 30, 2019. He was not being extended in his position and he was expected by his employer, the Afghanistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to return to Afghanistan at its completion.

37Sometime between receiving his notice in April of 2019 and May 15, 2019, Ms. Alami applied for and obtained a visa which would permit her entry into the United Kingdom. On May 15, 2019, the family travelled to England and established themselves in rental accommodations. At the beginning of June, the children were registered for and began attending school in London. By June 11, they had obtained NHS numbers and were registered as patients with the Hanwell Health Centre.

38What is most indicative of the fact that Mr. Alami did not have an agreement with Ms. Alami to return to Canada if she didn’t like London are the circumstances of her and the children’s departure.

The circumstances of the children’s move from the U.K. (Country A) to Canada (Country B)

39Around Saturday, July 6, 2019, Ms. Alami informed Mr. Alami that she wanted to take the children to her uncle, Sadiq Chakari’s home in London for the day for a family gathering. Mr. Alami had no issue with this as she Ms. Alami regularly visited Mr. Chakari’s home. Around 3:00 p.m., Mr. Alami called Ms. Alami’s brother, Marwan Ahmad Zai and invited him to have dinner with the family that evening as he wanted to review the visa application he had prepared for Ms. Alami for residency status in U.K. with Mr. Ahmad Zai. Mr. Ahmad Zai agreed and indicated to Mr. Alami that he would pick up Ms. Alami and the children from Mr. Chakari’s home on his way. They did not appear and later in the evening, Mr. Alami received a phone call from an Immigration Officer from the Montreal airport informing him that his children were in Canada and asking if he would agree to allow them entry. After taking some time to think about it, Mr. Alami called the Officer back and indicated that the children were in Canada without his permission and he wanted them returned to the U.K. On July 19, 2019 he made a full statement to the London police and Ms. Alami was subsequently charged with child abduction, which case is still before the courts in Quebec.

40Ms. Alami does not dispute that she left London for Canada without informing Mr. Alami. Her evidence in this regard centers around her assertions that a) she was forced/tricked into going to England and b) Mr. Alami agreed with her returning to Canada. However, Ms. Alami contradicts herself in relation to the first assertion in paragraph 22 of her affidavit sworn on October 20, 2021, wherein she states: “When Tawab knew that I could not go back to Afghanistan, he decided to pressure me to go with him to the UK as he believed he had a better chance of controlling me in the UK through my family and close relatives who live in the UK”. Whether you agree with this statement or not, which Mr. Alami does not, it does suggest that Ms. Alami was very aware of the intention to live in London (not visit it). She also indicated at paragraph 24 of the same affidavit: “When Tawab discovered I had begun the divorce and asylum process, he began to pressure me into moving to the UK.” This is completely contrary to Ms. Alami stating in paragraph 20 of her affidavit: “…I could not take the risk of him knowing about the divorce while he was an influential diplomat in the Afghan Embassy. I decided to wait until the end of the diplomatic visa to file for divorce and asylum”. Nevertheless, if the former statement is true, it suggests that Ms. Alami was aware possibly as early as 2018 that Mr. Alami wanted the family to relocate (move permanently) to London.

41Ms. Alami alleges that although Mr. Alami agreed the journey to London was for a visit only, on May 23, 2019, he forcibly took her and the children’s passports.⁶ She states, however, later that night he agreed she and the children could go back to Canada and he gave Ms. Alami all the passports back.⁷ She alleges, however, that the next morning he again changed his mind, though she makes no mention of the passports again being retained by Mr. Alami.

42Later in her affidavit, Ms. Alami states that when Mr. Alami returned to Canada on June 11, 2019 to wrap up his posting, he “surprisingly” did not take her or the children’s passports with him, and told her she could join him in Canada whenever she wanted.8 She indicates that she attempted to get Mr. Ahmad Zai to help her book tickets, but he would not do so “without direct permission from Tawab”.9

43Ms. Alami alleges that Mr. Alami physically assaulted her on July 1, 2010 upon his return to London, and that only after telling him she would never divorce him did he again agree to her and the children returning to Canada. She also indicates that Mr. Alami directly told her brother that he was agreeing to her return to Canada, which she found reassuring. Mr. Ahmad Zai swore an affidavit in which he indicated that Mr. Alami phoned him on July 4, 2019 and confirmed what Ms. Alami had told her about her return to Canada with the children.10 Mr. Alami denies that he ever told Mr. Ahmad Zai that he agreed to the children going to Canada. Mr. Ahmad Zai states that he booked Ms. Alami and the children’s flights to Canada online shortly after Mr. Alami confirmed his agreement. He did not tell Mr. Alami of the date of the return of the children, and his explanation for Ms. Alami not doing so was her “justifiably” being concerned about Mr. Alami’s “inconsistent assertions and questionable intentions” and her fear of “further violence in the presence of the children”, all of which Mr. Alami denies. Mr. Ahmad Zai also indicated that Ms. Alami intended to secretly divorce Mr. Alami once she’d safely arrived in Canada. Thus, it seems, even if Mr. Alami’s did at some point agree to the return of the children to Canada (which he denies), it was neither an informed nor certain agreement.

44Ultimately, the children were returned to Canada on July 6, 2019, undeniably without Mr. Alami’s knowledge. It seems logical that if Ms. Alami and/or Mr. Ahmad Zai were confident that Mr. Alami was consenting to the children leaving London and returning to Canada, the secrecy involved would not have been necessary. Clearly, Ms. Alami had the necessary travel documents at her disposal to permit the travel, which suggests that Mr. Alami was not in anyway keeping them from her. If Mr. Alami was indeed consenting to the travel, as suggested by Ms. Alami and Mr. Ahmad Zai, it would have been prudent for Ms. Alami to obtain a signed travel consent from him. She did not do so. Instead, with the assistance of those whom she previously alleged Mr. Alami would rely on to better control her, namely Mr. Chakari and Mr. Ahmad Zai, she removed the children from London without his knowledge or specific consent.11

S. and B. links to and circumstances in Canada (Country B)

45As of July 6, 2019, S. and B. had no links to Canada. They were registered in and attending school in London, and they were registered with the National Health Service in England. They were and are, moreover, citizens of the U.K.

46Although they were previously in school in Ottawa, it was anticipated that this would come to an end. As indicated above, Mr. Alami’s posting was ending on June 30, 2019, and he and the family were required to leave Canada no later than July 31, 2019. They did not have health coverage in Canada, beyond whatever was covered by their insurance through the Afghanistan embassy. Indeed, one of Ms. Alami’s complaints is that Mr. Alami would not pay for services for B.’s autism prior to the move to the U. K.12. Another is that he would not pay for her dental care.13

47All evidence in this case points to these parents making the decision that returning to Afghanistan at the end of Mr. Alami’s posting was not in the best interests of the children, particularly B. Nor was it going to be in Ms. Alami’s. She indicates that since late 2018, she has received death threats from relatives and tribesmen in Afghanistan relating to her “Un-Islamic” sense of dress and lifestyle.14 Thus, her only options if she wished to avoid returning to Afghanistan were: 1) move to the U.K. with Mr. Alami and seek residency status there through him, 2) separate from Mr. Alami in the U.K. and apply for refugee status there, or 3) make her way back to Canada and apply for refugee status here. Although Ms. Alami has given reasons for not applying for refugee status in the U.K. having to do with the presence of her elder and influential Afghani relatives, absent her intent to return and apply for refugee status in Canada, there is no other evidence of any connection to Canada at the time of the removal.

Order

48Based on all the above, I therefore find that the date of the unlawful removal of the children S. and B. was July 6, 2019, and that at the time of the removal their habitual residence was London, England.

Costs

49As the matter has been divided into two separate hearings, with the first being on the date of wrongful removal and the habitual residence of the children and the second being on whether the children should be “immediately” returned to their habitual residence, the issue of the costs of this part of the hearing is deferred until the matter is completed.

50Once the Immigration and Refugee Board has decided S. and B.’s claim, Part II of the hearing may be scheduled before me through the Office of the Trial Coordinator.

Engelking J.

Footnotes

1. 1Ludwig, supra, paragraphs 25 and 26
2. 2Ludwig, paragraphs 30 and 31
3. 3Ibid., paragraph 20
4. 4Ibid., paragraph 25
5. 5Reply Affidavit of Tawab Alami sworn October 18, 2021, paragraphs 13 and 14
6. 6Affidavit of S. Alami sworn October 20, 2021, paragraph 32
7. 7Affidavit of S. Alami sworn October 20, 2021, paragraph 33