Date: 20060605
Docket: IMM-5048-05
Citation: 2006 FC 698
Ottawa, Ontario, June 5, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
SHOEB AHMED NAKHUDA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, a Muslim male citizen of India in his mid-30s, fled to South Africa from India in May 1999. In December 2000, after one and a half years in South Africa, he went to the United States. He stayed there from January 2001 until November 2004 when he came to Canada and sought refugee protection. The Board rejected his application on grounds of credibility and available internal flight alternative (IFA).
II. Facts
[2] He alleged that he was targeted by Hindu extremists because of his financial position, his religious background and his membership in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He recited incidents of threats, physical attacks and indifference and hostility by police to his complaints and fears for his safety.
[3] The Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) denied the application for refugee protection on the basis of lack of credibility as to his persecution and the availability of an IFA.
[4] On the issue of credibility, the Board found several inconsistencies and contradictions in his oral evidence, coupled with inconsistencies between the oral evidence and other evidence in the record. The Board cited instances of the evidentiary problems (some of which are outlined below):
· inconsistencies in identifying who his alleged agents of persecution were;
· unsatisfactory evidence about his membership in the BJP, ranging from an absence of documentary evidence of membership and a lack of knowledge of the history of the party to a questionable rationale for joining a party that has links to Hindu extremists when he is a member of the Muslim minority;
· inconsistent evidence as to the occurrence of riots between Hindus and Muslims; and
· inconsistencies between his oral evidence and his PIF.
[5] The Board also drew a negative inference in all the circumstances for his failure to claim in the United States and his delay in coming to Canada.
[6] Finally, the Board found that the Applicant had an IFA in major urban centres in India or anywhere in the south of India due to large Muslim populations in those areas. The Board applied the two-prong test, considered where his family and friends were, his travel experience, his education and his tri-lingualism. On that basis, it concluded that it was reasonable to avail himself of an IFA.
III. Analysis
[7] While the Applicant admits to some inconsistencies and evidentiary problems, he argues that the Board failed to assess the whole of the evidence and took a microscopic view of his evidence. He further claims that the Board did not adequately assess his own particular personal circumstances in concluding that it was reasonable to avail himself of an IFA.
[8] The standard of review for both credibility and IFA findings has been held to be patent unreasonableness. (Aguebor v. (Canada) Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315; [1993] F.C.J. No. 732 (QL) and Sarker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 435 (QL); 2005 FC 353 respectively.) I see no reason to conclude that there should be a different standard of review.
[9] On the credibility findings, given the examples of the evidentiary difficulty cited by the Board, it was entirely reasonable for the Board to question the Applicant's credibility. Many of these inconsistencies and difficulties noted by the Board serve to undermine the foundation of the claim. The Court is in no position to second-guess the Board who had the benefit of the oral testimony and did a proper and thorough analysis of the testimony and other evidence.
[10] On the matter of the IFA, the Board not only looked at the institutional issue of available IFAs, whether there were places in India where a Muslim could live in his own milieu, but also examined the Applicant's ability to live there. In that regard, the Board carried out the two-prong analysis mandated by Valencia v. Canada(Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 85 F.T.R. 218; [1994] F.C.J. No. 1215 (QL) and regularly confirmed in various judgments of this Court.
[11] The Applicant simply disagreed with the Board's assessment of the evidence and invites the Court to reweigh the evidence and reach a different conclusion. On these facts, there is nothing to justify the Court's interference.
[12] This application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
JUDGMENT
IT IS ORDERED THAT the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
"Michael L. Phelan"
Email this Content