[1] The applicants, Shahnaz Akhtar and her two minor children are Shia Muslims and citizens of Pakistan who, in this judicial review proceeding, seek to set aside the August 22, 2002 decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the tribunal) which rejected their refugee claims in which they allege a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) and the police. In addition, they claim to be persons in need of protection because of their being in danger of torture or at risk of losing their lives or at risk of cruel and causal punishment in Pakistan.
[2] As I see it, the tribunal denied their claim on two bases: available protection by the State against sectarian violence which it acknowledged existed in Pakistan between Shia and Sunni extremists and absence of credible or trustworthy evidence in support of their claim which led it to conclude "that she is not generally credible".
[3] Counsel for the applicants was quite candid with the Court which is appreciated.
[4] He framed the issue of protection in terms of what quality of protection can be expected in a situation where the agent of the alleged persecution is not a State agent such as the police.
[5] This qualification of the police not being agents of persecution in this case is important because of the applicants' allegation that the police sided with the Sunni who persecuted her husband and son who are said to be in hiding in Pakistan.
[6] The tribunal made a specific finding that it did not believe Mrs. Akhtar's allegation citing documentary evidence. Counsel for the applicants could point to no documentary evidence in the record to support the proposition the police in Pakistan supported Sunni extremists against the Shia.
[7] The tribunal dealt with state protection in the Shia-Sunni conflict in these terms:
The panel is aware that sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni extremist groups exists in Pakistan. However, documentary evidence reveals that Shias are not systemically discriminated against by other elements in Pakistani society; that they are generally protected by the government and are well integrated into the society. Most Sunni Muslims live peacefully with Shia Muslims. Though the state of Pakistan has difficulty in stamping out sectarian violence, there is a lack of objective evidence to indicate that the military government or police favors the Sunni majority over the Shia or that the state directs persecutory actions against the Shia. As a matter of fact, documentary evidence shows that the military government has taken recent steps to curb religious extremism. During the period of Muharram when incidents of violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims typically occur, the government made mass arrests of those suspected of contemplating violent action against members of the other group, and a public call for religious leaders to enforce a code of conduct. On August 14, 2001, the government banned two groups, the Shia Muslim based Sipah-e-Mohammed Pakistan, and the Sunni Muslim based Lashar-e-Jhangvi, both of which had claimed responsibility for acts of sectarian violence in the past. In January 2002, a further five groups including the SSP were banned. Announcing the ban President Musharraf stated that an aim of the ban was cleaning society of sectarian violence and intolerance. In the crackdown of these extremist religious groups following the ban, over 1900 religious activists were detained. Based on this objective evidence on the government's response to sectarian violence, the panel does not believe the claimant's allegation that the police sided with the Sunni and persecuted her husband and son.
[8] What I take from this paragraph is: (1) an acknowledgment by the tribunal of the existence of violence between Shia and Sunni extremists; (2) Pakistan has had difficulties stamping out this violence; (3) Pakistan has taken steps to curb religious extremism; (4) the SSP has been banned; and (5) sectarian violence is addressed through law enforcement.
[9] I am reminded of the following words of Justice Hugessen, then with the Federal Court of Appeal, in Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Villafranca [1992] F.C.J. No. 1189:
[...] On the other hand, where a state is in effective control of its territory, has military, police and civil authority in place, and makes serious efforts to protect its citizens from terrorist activities, the mere fact that it is not always successful at doing so will not be enough to justify a claim that the victims of terrorism are unable to avail themselves of such protection.
[10] Counsel for the applicants tried to convince me the tribunal did not fairly deal with the documentary evidence on protection. My review of the documentary evidence persuades me the tribunal accurately portrayed it particularly when assessed in the context of the tribunal's appreciation that protection against sectarian violence or sectarian terrorism was not perfect in Pakistan.
[11] The tribunal cited six instances which led it to find the applicant Shahnaz Akhtar's evidence not credible. In some cases, implausibility findings were drawn, in others, the finding rested on contradictions with her Personal Information Form and yet in others it was grounded on her confusing testimony or unpersuasive answers.
[12] The law is quite clear to the effect assessments of the nature described above as the building blocks to credibility findings is the task of the tribunal and this Court cannot reweigh the evidence and substitute its decision unless errors are identified which would lead the tribunal to rule the credibility finding was patently unreasonable. The applicants have not been able to identify any such errors.
[13] For these reasons, this judicial review application is dismissed. No certified question was proposed.
"François Lemieux"
Judge
Montreal, Quebec
May 1, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20030501
Docket: IMM-4328-02
BETWEEN:
SHAHNAZ AKHTAR
NUZHAT YASMEEN
MOHAMMAD QAISER GONDAL
applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4328-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHAHNAZ AKHTAR
NUZHAT YASMEEN
MOHAMMAD QAISER GONDAL
applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 29, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
DATED: May 1, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Ethan A. Friedman FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. Mario Blanchard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Ethan A. Friedman FOR THE APPLICANTS
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec
Email this Content