Date: 20031105
Docket: IMM-318-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1288
Ottawa, Ontario, this 5th day of November, 2003
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
SAQIB SIDDIQUE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Saqib Siddique (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the "Board"), dated December 5, 2002. In its decision, the Board found the Applicant not to be a Convention refugee.
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of an extremist Sunni Muslim group, Sipah-e-Sahaba (the "SSP") due to his religion, as a Shia Muslim, and a member of an active group of Shia Muslims in Pakistan.
[3] He claimed that because of his involvement in his local Imambara, a Shia place of worship, he was targeted by SSP members, and physically attacked and threatened to stop his religious activities. He had become a member of the Managing Committee of the Imambara on or about October 1998.
[4] The Applicant claims that in May 2001, he was beaten by SSP members during a "majlis", a Shia religious gathering, that he had hosted at his home. He, together with some other Shia Muslims, went to the police to report this incident and although they were able to provide the names of some of his attackers, the police refused to act. When he became angry with this lack of response, the Applicant was detained in jail and released the next day upon payment of a bribe.
[5] The Applicant claims that he received threatening phone calls from members of the SSP, warning him to stop his Shia charitable activities.
[6] The Applicant spoke of an incident in August 2001 when he was distributing food to needy Shia families. He claims that a Sunni woman asked him for food and he gave her some food. Later the SSP went to his house looking for him. The Applicant claims that they verbally abused his mother and brothers, and warned them to prepare for the Applicant's funeral. They said that they believed that the Applicant was trying to convert Sunni women by bribing them with groceries. The SSP said they had targeted the Applicant for death.
[7] The Applicant, who was not at home, was contacted by his brother in Lahore. He was told not to return home. The Applicant says that his brother reported the incident to the police and the police said they would not get involved.
[8] The Applicant remained in hiding at the home of a relative in Lahore. He left Pakistan on October 2, 2001 and arrived in Canada on the same day. He made his claim for Convention refugee status on October 13, 2001.
[9] The Board made a number of negative credibility findings against the Applicant, including disbelief of his explanation for the delay in making his claim for Convention refugee status upon his arrival in Canada. The Board also found the Applicant's evidence about the attack on his home, on the basis that he had given a Sunni woman some groceries, to be implausible.
[10] Further, the Board noted that the Applicant's two older brothers are similarly situated to him, as they are Shia Muslims and they live in the family home. The brothers did not have problems with the SSP. As well, the General Secretary of the Imambara had not experienced any problems with the SSP. That person had a higher profile in the Shia community and the Applicant's explanation for his lack of harassment was not accepted as plausible by the Board.
[11] As well, the Board found that country conditions in Pakistan were such that the state was making "serious efforts to provide adequate but not always perfect protection for citizens" like the Applicant.
[12] The Board analysed the documentary evidence in detail and concluded that state protection for the Applicant is available in Pakistan, should he encounter problems in the future. In this regard, the Board relied on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.), to support its conclusion that "perfect" protection is not the standard and where a state is in effective control of its territory with police and military authority in place, and is making "serious efforts" to protect its citizens from terrorist activities, then state protection is likely to exist.
[13] Although the Applicant challenges the credibility findings made by the Board and submits that they were made capriciously and without regard to the evidence, the record does not support that argument. In my opinion, the Applicant is challenging the weight that the Board gave to his evidence. That is not sufficient to allow judicial intervention with the decision under review, having regard to the applicable standard of review for decisions of the Board, that is patent unreasonableness as discussed in Conkova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 300 (T.D.) (QL).
[14] In the present case, the Board found that the Applicant lacked the objective and subjective grounds for a well-founded fear of persecution, based on its implausibility findings in relation to similarly situated persons in Pakistan and the attack that occurred at the Applicant's home on August 14, 2001. The Board is to be accorded a high degree of deference in weighing the evidence before it and making its findings relative to the objective basis of the claim.
[15] The Board's findings on credibility meet the standard set out in Hilo v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.); it gave reasons, in "clear and unmistakable terms", why it did not find parts of the Applicant's evidence credible. In my opinion, those findings were not made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the evidence submitted to the Board, nor can they be called patently unreasonable.
[16] The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-318-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SAQIB SIDDIQUE v. MCI
DATE OF HEARING: August 13, 2003
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER BY: Heneghan J.
DATED: November 5, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. John Savaglio
For the Applicant
Ms. Kareena Wilding
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. John Savaglio
Barrister and Solicitor
1919 Brookshire Square.
Pickering, Ont.
L1V-6L2
For the Applicant
Ms. Kareena Wilding
Department of Justice
130 King Street West, Suite 3400, Box 36
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6
For the Respondent
Email this Content