Date: 20030924
Docket: IMM-4722-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1068
Between:
SALAMAT ALI CHAUDHRY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated September 3, 2002, wherein the Board found him not to be a Convention refugee as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "Act") or a "person in need of protection" as defined in section 97 of the Act.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. He alleges a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinions. In addition, he claims to be in danger of torture and at risk of loss of life or being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Pakistan.
[3] The applicant submits that the Board's findings with respect to his credibility are unreasonable.
[4] Upon reviewing the evidence, I am not convinced that the Board in this case based its decision on patently unreasonable errors or that it acted arbitrarily. The Board clearly and comprehensibly explained its reasons for doubting the applicant's credibility.
[5] The applicant submits that the Board was unreasonable in drawing a negative inference from the lack of official documentation regarding his restaurant. Normally, in the absence of any other reason for calling the applicant's credibility into doubt, the Board cannot require corroborative evidence (Ahortor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 21 Imm.L.R. (2d) 39). However, where, as here, the applicant's story is found to be implausible, a lack of corroborative evidence may reinforce that finding (Syed v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (March 13, 1998), IMM-1613-97).
[6] The applicant reproaches the Board for suggesting that he should have obtained false documents respecting his ownership and the sale of the restaurant. Although the Board does not express itself clearly on this one point, it does refer to evidence which was presented to the applicant during the hearing concerning the facility with which "official" documents can be obtained in Pakistan. When this is read in conjunction with the transcript of the hearing, it would appear that the Board was concerned with the authenticity of the documents which the applicant did provide, being the letterhead and business card, and it was not rebuking him for not having obtained fraudulent documents of ownership and sale:
Q. We have documentations, Sir, that in Pakistan, there is a large productivity of fake documents. Anyone, Sir, in any printing office...any printing shop can go and print a card, an owner's card and a letterhead. Don't you think that an official...if you are to establish that you have a restaurant, a business on your name, that an official document would have been needed?
[7] The applicant submits that the Board erred in disregarding his explanation that the anti-government rally was held under the guise of the "Great Day" celebrations, since it was entirely logical for such a rally to take place under a military regime where normal demonstrations are not allowed. However, the applicant did not offer this explanation to the Board during the hearing, but simply admitted to "some confusion in explaining". The Board did not err in finding the applicant's testimony on this point contradictory.
[8] The applicant further submits that the medical report is consistent with his testimony, other than with respect to one detail concerning the removal of skin. However, the Board was correct in stating that the report did not mention either the removal of skin or the internal injuries to which the applicant referred in his testimony. It was not unreasonable for the Board to question the validity of the applicant's description of his injuries when it did not match the description in the medical report.
[9] The applicant argues that the Board's interpretation of the events surrounding the rally on July 8, 2000 does not contradict his own statements. In fact, the Board's main concern with respect to this part of the applicant's testimony was that it was "sketchy, vague, confusing and inconsistent", which is apparent upon reading the transcript of the hearing. Although some parts of the applicant's testimony may not have contradicted the Board's interpretation of events, the Board did not err in finding that the testimony as a whole regarding the rally was unreliable.
[10] The applicant submits that the Board erred when it stated that his restaurant was under surveillance. In fact, the Board stated that the restaurant "seemed to be under police surveillance". Given the events described by the applicant, it was not unreasonable for the Board to have reached this tentative conclusion.
[11] The applicant also argues that there is no inconsistency between the applicant's statement that nobody had noticed the meeting and the fact that it was reported in the press the next day, because he explained that his impression had been that nobody had noticed. Although I might have reached a different conclusion on this point, it was not patently unreasonable of the Board to find that the applicant adjusted his testimony and that this resulted in an inconsistency in his evidence on this point.
[12] Finally, the applicant submits that the Board's conclusion that the article was pasted on the newspaper page is exaggerated and ill-founded, and cannot be drawn without an expertise. However, as the respondent submits, there were problems with the newspaper article that were apparent on its face. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for the Board to doubt its authenticity without having recourse to an expertise (see, for example, Culinescu v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1997), 136 F.T.R. 241 and Hossain v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (February 4, 2000), IMM-1600-99 (F.C.T.D.)).
[13] It must be noted that the Board consistently made reference to the applicant's attitude, his lack of spontaneity, his inability to explain inconsistencies, and his vague, sketchy and general testimony. The transcript confirms to a certain extent the Board's impressions, and this Court is in no position to review those aspects which go to the applicant's demeanour, which the Board is uniquely positioned to assess (Anwar v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (October 16, 2002), IMM-1857-02, 2002 FCT 1077).
[14] For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the Board committed no patently unreasonable error in its disposition of this case. The application for judicial review is, therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 24, 2003
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4722-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: SALAMAT ALI CHAUDHRY v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: August 19, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: September 24, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Me Claudette Menghile FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Caroline Cloutier FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Me Claudette Menghile FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content