Date: 20050120
Docket: IMM-5561-03
Citation: 2005 FC 68
Ottawa, Ontario, this 20th day of January, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
USMAN CHAUDHARY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 ("IRPA"), of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), dated June 12, 2003, wherein it was determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
[2] The applicant requested an order setting aside the Board's decision and referring his claim back for re-determination.
Background
[3] The applicant, Usman Chaudhary, is a citizen of Pakistan who claims a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his political opinion and membership in a particular social group, namely, his family has allegedly been targeted by supporters of the Pakistan Peoples Party ("PPP").
[4] The applicant stated that in the 1980s, his father and various relatives became active in the local union council, national assembly and were members of the Pakistan Muslim League. He alleged that criminal groups supported by the PPP threatened them and in 1990, murdered the applicant's uncle and great-uncle. The applicant alleged that his father started receiving threatening phone calls after filing a police report about the killings. The caller threatened that if the case was pursued, the applicant's father and his family would be killed. The applicant stated that out of fear, he stopped going to school and his family remained mostly at home.
[5] The applicant alleged that PPP supporters also murdered his father, who was killed on August 12, 1991. The applicant's grandfather reported this incident to the police, but no one was arrested. He later read in the newspaper that one of the suspects in his father's murder, named Mr. Afzal, was killed in a police ambush.
[6] In 1997, the applicant alleged that his cousin was murdered and a police report was filed. Subsequently, the applicant and his family started receiving threats from PPP supporters blaming them for Mr. Afzal's death, and in February 1998, the applicant alleged that a number of PPP gangsters came to his house and opened gunfire in the air, broke windows and yelled names. The applicant stated that he reported the incident to the authorities but nothing was done.
[7] In June 1999, the applicant alleged that he was attacked by pro-PPP gangsters on his way home from working on the farm, who knew he was planning on running for a position on the district council and was pursuing the case of his father's murder in the courts. The applicant further alleged that he was badly beaten, hospitalized for five days and reported the attack to the police. Although the police wrote a type of daily report, no "first incident report" was filed and no one was arrested in relation to the attack.
[8] After the June 1999 attack, the applicant stated that he consulted a lawyer about pressing his father's case in the courts, since the police were not taking action or making any arrests.
[9] In September 1999, the applicant stated that he was playing a cricket match with friends when two men appeared on a motorbike, asked for the applicant and one of them took out a gun. The applicant alleged that he tried to jump on the person but the gun discharged and his left leg was wounded. He was also beaten in the face with the gun butt and bled badly. The applicant stated that he was hospitalized for a week for his injuries, told the police about the incident, but no arrests were made.
[10] After the September 1999 incident, the applicant stated that he decided to leave Pakistan. He went into hiding and his family arranged his departure. He alleged that while in hiding the pro-PPP gangsters went to the applicant's house asking about him.
[11] On August 10, 2000, the applicant left Pakistan and arrived in Mozambique on August 11, 2000. On May 23, 2001, he left Mozambique and travelled to the United States via South Africa. He arrived in New York City on June 23, 2001. The applicant left the United States on June 20, 2002 and arrived in Canada on June 21, 2002, where he made a refugee claim.
[12] The applicant claimed to fear the gangsters who killed his father and other relatives. He stated that he is not safe in Pakistan and would be killed if returned to that country.
[13] On June 3, 2003, the Board held a hearing into the applicant's claim.
Reasons of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Protection Division)
[14] In a decision dated June 12, 2003, the Board determined that the applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection within the meaning of IRPA.
[15] The basis for the Board's negative decision was that in its view, the applicant had failed to establish the central elements of his claim with credible and trustworthy evidence. The Board did not find it credible that the applicant was targeted, or that the incidents described by the applicant had actually occurred as described. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant's one year illegal stay in the United States inconsistent with a genuine subjective fear of persecution if returned to Pakistan.
[16] First, the Board did not find the applicant's account of the September 1999 attack by two persons on a motorbike to be credible. In oral evidence, the applicant had stated that he pushed the person with the gun, but in his PIF narrative the applicant had said he jumped on the person with the gun. When questioned on this discrepancy, the applicant stated that he both pushed and jumped on the person with the gun, which the Board found implausible. Furthermore, the Board's credibility concerns were not offset by a medical report confirming scars consistent with the applicant's account of the attack, since there were many possible explanations for the scars. Based on the applicant's inconsistent evidence and the lack of a clear account of what exactly happened during the attack, the Board concluded that the incident did not occur in the manner described by the applicant.
[17] Second, the Board found the applicant's explanation for why he was targeted by the pro-PPP gangsters to be "problematic". Assuming that it accepted the applicant's allegation that his father's attackers blamed him for the death of their cohort, Mr. Afzal in 1996, the Board found it implausible that the attackers would wait more than a year to make any contact with the applicant and that the first contact would be gunshots outside his house.
[18] The applicant also stated that he was targeted because he was pursuing his father's murder case through the courts. Since the applicant did not consult with a lawyer about pressing this issue until after the 1999 attack, the applicant was asked how the attackers would have known about his efforts. The applicant stated that he had consulted a friend when campaigning for city council election. When asked to explain the year and a half delay between the attack on his house and consulting his friend, the applicant testified that the police had said they would look for the attackers, and only later did he realize that the police were doing nothing. When asked to explain, then, why his PIF narrative stated that the police "did nothing for us" if they had actually given assurances that the incident would be investigated, the applicant stated that he "probably could not understand". The Board concluded (at page 3 of its reasons):
Due to the implausibilities of persons waiting more than a year before any contact with the claimant, the nature of the contact, the inconsistencies as to what the police had said when contacted and the lack of any acceptable explanation I found this account of problems with the PPP agents to lack any ring of truth. On a balance of probabilities, the various attacks did not occur in the manner described.
[19] Third, the Board found that the applicant's conduct in remaining illegally in the United States for a year without taking any steps to legitimize his status inconsistent with the conduct of someone who truly feared for his life if returned to Pakistan. The Board noted that the applicant claimed that his friend gave him bad advice, but found it implausible that someone who feared being murdered in Pakistan would risk being discovered and deported.
[20] On this basis, the Board concluded that the applicant had provided insufficient credible or trustworthy evidence on which to establish his claim, and that his year-long stay in the United States evidenced a lack of subjective fear of persecution.
[21] This is the judicial review of the Board's decision.
Applicant's Submissions
[22] The applicant submitted that the Board's implausibility and negative credibility findings are so unreasonable they warrant the intervention of this Court.
[23] The applicant stated that it was unreasonable for the Board to find it implausible that he both pushed and jumped on his attacker during the 1999 incident at the cricket field. The applicant stated that he first tried to jump on his attacker and then pushed him. In the applicant's view, it was unreasonable for the Board to find this description implausible.
[24] The applicant further submitted that the Board erred in making a negative credibility finding based on the delay between the attack on his house, and when he consulted a friend about the incident. The applicant stated that it was unreasonable for the Board to have drawn a negative credibility inference based on this testimony, since the police had assured him that they would investigate the matter and it was only later that the applicant realized that nothing was being done by the authorities and asked a friend for advice, thereby explaining what appeared to be a considerable delay.
[25] The applicant submitted that he provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to make a refugee claim in the United States, namely, that he arrived without knowledge of the English language or of the refugee process, and relied on poor advice from a friend who told him that refugee claims had to be made at the border, and could not be made from within the United States. Given this explanation, the applicant submitted that it was unreasonable for the Board to draw its negative inference, and in doing so, the Board failed to take into account the language barrier and lack of knowledge of the applicant.
[26] Beyond the unreasonable credibility and implausibility findings, the applicant submitted that the Board erred by ignoring relevant documentary evidence, thereby failing to consider the totality of the evidence before it.
[27] Although the applicant recognized that the Board did not have to refer to all the documents entered in evidence, the applicant argued that the Board was obligated to explain why it did not accept the corroborative documentary evidence he submitted. The applicant pointed to news articles reporting the murder of his relatives and that legal action was pursued in an attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice. Since the applicant alleged a fear of persecution based on his association with his slain family members, and for his support of legal efforts to address the crimes, the applicant submitted that the Board erred by ignoring those documents in its reasons.
Respondent's Submissions
[28] The respondent submitted that the Board credibility findings should be reviewed on a standard of patent unreasonableness, meaning that this Court should only intervene if there is no evidence capable of supporting the conclusions reached by the Board. The respondent further submitted that this Court should not revisit the facts or re-weigh the evidence.
[29] Given this deferential standard of review, the respondent submitted that the applicant has not demonstrated any grounds for setting aside the Board's decision.
[30] The respondent submitted that the Board's negative credibility inferences were reasonably drawn from the evidence. Firstly, in relation to the September 1999 attack at the cricket field, the respondent submitted that it was open to the Board to find the incident unbelievable, given the applicant's implausible account that he both pushed and jumped on his attacker, who was on a motorbike, and the overall lack of clarity of the applicant's testimony describing the incident.
[31] Secondly, given the inconsistencies and evasions in the applicant's testimony, the respondent submitted that it was open to the Board to doubt that he was ever targeted by the PPP as alleged or that the various incidents the applicant described occurred at all. In the respondent's view, the applicant has misunderstood the basis of the Board's negative inference on this issue. It was not only the applicant's delay in consulting a friend about the attack on his house which troubled the Board, but the implausibility of the attackers waiting more than a year after Mr Afzal's death to retaliate, that their first contact with the applicant would be gunfire, and the inconsistent evidence regarding the police response to the applicant's complaints which led to a negative credibility inference. The respondent submitted that the applicant was adjusting his testimony during the hearing, and the Board's findings were reasonably open to it.
[32] Thirdly, the respondent submitted that it was reasonable for the Board to find it incredible that the applicant would claim to have a fear of being murdered in Pakistan, but remain in the United States for over a year without status, thereby risking deportation to Pakistan if discovered by the authorities.
[33] The respondent further submitted that it was open to the Board to draw a negative inference from the applicant's lack of effort to learn his options for legalizing his status in the United States, especially given that the applicant is not as unsophisticated as he purports to be. The respondent pointed out that the applicant is from a prominent and politically savvy landlord family and had involvement with lawyers while in Pakistan, which contradicts his claims of being a victim of misinformation. Therefore, the respondent submitted that it was reasonable for the Board to find that the applicant's behaviour was inconsistent with a genuine fear of serious harm in Pakistan.
[34] Finally, the respondent submitted that it is well established the Board is presumed to have considered and weighed all the evidence presented to it, and is not obligated to refer in its reasons to every piece of evidence it considered. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that the documentary evidence which the applicant claimed the Board ignored was of little probative value to the issues of credibility and subjective fear of persecution. Since the Board did not disbelieve that members of the applicant's family were murdered or that police reports were filed in relation to those crimes, the respondent submitted that the Board was not required to specifically mention the documents in question in assessing the evidence.
[35] The respondent requested that this application for judicial review be dismissed.
Issues
[36] The issues are as follows:
1. Did the Board err in reaching its negative credibility finding?
2. Did the Board err in concluding the applicant lacked a subjective fear of persecution?
3. Did the Board err in its treatment of the documentary evidence before it?
Relevant Statutory Provisions
[37] Section 96 and subsection 97(1) of IRPA define "Convention refugee" and "person in need of protection" as follows:
|
96. A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,
(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or
. . .
97. (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally
(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or
|
96. A qualité de réfugié au sens de la Convention - le réfugié - la personne qui, craignant avec raison d'être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques:
a) soit se trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays;
. . .
97. (1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n'a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée:
a) soit au risque, s'il y a des motifs sérieux de le croire, d'être soumise à la torture au sens de l'article premier de la Convention contre la torture;
|
|
(b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,
(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country,
(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and
(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.
|
b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant:
(i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays,
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d'autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s'y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas,
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes - sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales - et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l'incapacité du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
|
Analysis and Decision
[38] Preliminary Issue: Standard or Review
When reviewing a Board's credibility findings and the weight to be given to evidence, the standard or review is a hightly deferential one (see C.E.C.U. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2003 FCT 393, [2003] F.C.J. No. 554 (QL) at paragraph 7). The appropriate standard or review is patent unreasonableness.
[39] Issue 1
Did the Board err in reaching its negative credibility finding?
The Board found that the applicant's account of his attack by two men on a motorcycle was not believable. The Board's reason for not believing the account was because the Board did not believe the applicant could both jump and push his attacker, who was riding on the back of a motorcycle, and, because of the lack of an overall clear account of this incident. The applicant's amended PIF narrative reads in part as follows (page 28 of the tribunal record):
On September 1999 I was playing a cricket match along with my friends when two people came to the cricket ground. They first asked about me and came near to me. Suddenly I saw a person take out a pistol. I tried to jump on the person to protect myself but the gun discharged and my left leg was wounded. They beat me with their gun butt and my face was bleeding badly. Later these gangsters ran away and I was hospitalized for a week. I suspect again these pro PPP gangsters . . .
[40] At the hearing, the applicant testified about the incident as follows:
COUNSEL: When was your next trouble?
CLAIMANT: September 1999.
COUNSEL: Okay. What happened there?
CLAIMANT: I was playing cricket match with my friends in the ground. Two persons riding on their motorcycles, they came out and they asked the boys who is Usman Chaudhary. And the boys responded, he is (inaudible). They came inside the ground on their motorbikes. They stop their motorcycles close to the umpire. They ask who is Usman. I also heard (inaudible) and after hearing his words I ask them, I said I am Usman. I said, what is your problem. When they heard these words from me, and that motorbike who was behind, he removed pistol and when I saw that he was taking aim on me, I waited a moment, I jumped over him (inaudible) and during that time the bullet discharged and it passed through my leg. Then the second motorbike, he hit me with the (inaudible) on the bridge of my noise (sic), and the bleeding started. The second he hit me on the left side of my head with the butt of (inaudible). I fell down and it I (sic) was in harms road.
PRESIDING MEMBER: Okay. Sir, I just need some help. I'm confused. How many motorbikes were there?
CLAIMANT: There was one motorcycle, but there was two.
PRESIDING MEMBER: Two people riding on one motorcycle?
CLAIMANT: (Inaudible).
PRESIDING MEMBER: And then what did you do?
CLAIMANT: He removed his pistol and tried to aim on me. He was very, very (inaudible) to me or close to me. In order to save myself I (inaudible) so that I am able to save myself.
PRESIDING MEMBER: Well, you said you jumped on his back?
CLAIMANT: (Inaudible).
PRESIDING MEMBER: Well, sir, did you push him, or did you jump on his back?
CLAIMANT: I jumped on him, and tried to push him.
PRESIDING MEMBER: Okay. So, how did you do that, he's on a motorbike? (Inaudible) you're playing cricket.
CLAIMANT: The other boy was (inaudible). I was standing close to the umpire, just to make a run.
PRESIDING MEMBER: And you jumped on his back, or you pushed him, I just can't picture how this happened, but anyway your evidence is that the gun discharged and you were shot in the leg?
CLAIMANT: Yes.
[41] I cannot conclude, based on the applicant's evidence, that the Board's conclusion that the applicant's account of the incident was unbelievable should be disturbed as it was not "perverse, capricious or made without regard to the evidence before it" (C.E.C.U., supra). It is not the role of this court to simply substitute its view of the evidence for that of the Board.
[42] The existence of the medical report from Canada did not offset the Board's credibility concern. Again, this is a decision that the Board could make and was not patently unreasonable.
[43] The applicant's evidence was that gangsters came to his house in February 1998 and opened gunfire in the air and that he waited about one and a half years to consult a friend about the incident. The Board found this account not to be credible because the applicant waited so long to seek the advice of his friend. In response, the applicant stated that he had gone to the police who assured him they would investigate. It was only when he realized that the police were doing nothing about the incident and this was the explanation for the delay.
[44] However, in his PIF, the applicant stated the police would do nothing for him. The applicant's evidence was that the attackers were after him because as a result of him pursuing his father's murder in the courts, one of the alleged murderers of his father was killed. The Board found it implausible that the attackers would wait more than one year after the alleged murderer's death to come and threaten the applicant. I am of the view that the Board's conclusion on this point was not unreasonable. I base this conclusion on the jurisprudence stated in Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.) at paragraph 4:
There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review . . .
[45] Issue 2
Did the Board err in concluding the applicant lacked a subjective fear of persecution?
The Board found that the applicant lacked a subjective fear of persecution because he remained illegally in the United States from June 23, 2001 until June 20, 2002 when he left for Canada. The applicant testified on this point as follows at pages 131 to 133 of the tribunal record:
COUNSEL: Okay. When you left Pakistan I know you were in Africa for a while and made your way to America. And you were in America for about one year, is that right?
CLAIMANT: Yes.
COUNSEL: Did you make a refugee claim in America?
CLAIMANT: No.
COUNSEL: Were you legal in America, or not legal?
CLAIMANT: I was illegal.
COUNSEL: Why didn't you make a refugee claim?
CLAIMANT: When I came to the United States?
COUNSEL: Yes, sir?
CLAIMANT: I did not have any document of my identification. And people misguided me. Why you are (inaudible) you cannot claim refugee status.
PRESIDING MEMBER: What do you mean, sir?
CLAIMANT: My friends told me first of all you don't have any ID. And this is the law of the United States. You can claim refugee status at the border at that airport.
PRESIDING MEMBER: Well, why didn't you make a claim of the first year living in the United States? And there are circumstances when you can make a claim within the first year. Did you talk to a lawyer in the United States about making a claim?
CLAIMANT: I had not (inaudible) and ID.
PRESIDING MEMBER: Sir, that's not my question. My question is, did you talk to a lawyer in the United States about making a claim?
CLAIMANT: No.
PRESIDING MEMBER: So, who gave you the advice that you couldn't make a claim?
CLAIMANT: I talked to one friend. He said while you are (inaudible) the country, you cannot claim.
PRESIDING MEMBER: A friend. What knowledge would this friend have of the U.S. immigration law?
CLAIMANT: While I was in the U.S. he misguided me. And I became a victim.
PRESIDING MEMBER: So, what would happen if you got picked up in the United States illegally?
CLAIMANT: They could have deported me.
[46] On this point, the Board stated at pages 4 and 5 of its decision:
I find it implausible for a claimant on the one hand to state he fears he will be murdered in Pakistan if returned and yet on the other hand remain without status in the USA for a year. The claimant knew or reasonably ought to have known that if discovered he could be deported to Pakistan.
I find, on a balance of probabilities, the actions of the claimant to remain illegally in the USA for a year without taking any steps to legitimize his status not those of a person who truly fears for his life if returned to Pakistan.
[47] The applicant submitted that the Board failed to take into account his language barrier, his lack of knowledge of the refugee process and the fact that a friend gave him incorrect information about the refugee claim process. The Board did address these factors but rejected them and concluded that his conduct was inconsistent with the actions of someone who fled Pakistan fearing for his life. It is well established that a claimant's failure to seek refugee protection in the United States before reaching Canada when the United States is a signatory to the Convention is relevant to the Board's assessment of the claimant's subjective fear of persecution (see Ilie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 88 F.T.R. 220 (F.C.T.D.)). I am of the view that the Board's decision in this respect was reasonable.
[48] Issue 3
Did the Board err in its treatment of the documentary evidence before it?
The applicant submitted that the Board erred by ignoring newspaper articles, police reports and other documents which corroborated his testimony regarding the murder of his relatives. The applicant, in support of this argument, cited Mahmood v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 270, [2001] F.C.J. No. 486 (QL) at paragraphs 15 and 16:
It is well settled that a tribunal does not have to refer to all the documents entered in evidence. In Florea v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (A-1307-91, June 11, 1993) (F.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal indicated:
The fact that the Division did not mention each and every one of the documents entered in evidence before it does not indicate that it did not take them into account: on the contrary, a tribunal is assumed to have weighed and considered all the evidence presented to it unless the contrary is shown. As the tribunal's findings are supported by the evidence, the appeal will be dismissed.
However, in some circumstances the tribunal may have a duty to mention and explain why it has not accepted the documentary evidence filed by a plaintiff. In Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425 (F.C.T.D.), Evans J. indicated:
On the other hand, the reasons given by administrative agencies are not to be read hypercritically by a court (Medina v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990) 12 Imm. L.R. (2d) 33 (F.C.A.)), nor are agencies required to refer to every piece of evidence that they received that is contrary to their finding, and to explain how they dealt with it (see, for example, Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.)). That would be far too onerous a burden to impose upon administrative decision-makers who may be struggling with a heavy case-load and inadequate resources. A statement by the agency in its reasons for decision that, in making its findings, it considered all the evidence before it, will often suffice to assure the parties, and a reviewing court, that the agency directed itself to the totality of the evidence when making its findings of fact.
However, the more important the evidence that is not mentioned specifically and analyzed in the agency's reasons, the more willing a court may be to infer from the silence that the agency made an erroneous finding of fact "without regard to the evidence": Bains v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 63 F.T.R. 312 (F.C.T.D.). In other words, the agency's burden of explanation increases with the relevance of the evidence in question to the disputed facts. Thus, a blanket statement that the agency has considered all the evidence will not suffice when the evidence omitted from any discussion in the reasons appears squarely to contradict the agency's finding of fact. Moreover, when the agency refers in some detail to evidence supporting its finding, but is silent on evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion, it may be easier to infer that the agency overlooked the contradictory evidence when making its finding of fact.
[49] I have reviewed the allegedly ignored documents and I cannot agree that they assist the applicant as they are not probative of the "disputed facts", that is, how the applicant came to be personally targeted or whether the incidents he described actually occurred. The Board did not dispute that members of the applicant's family had been targeted or murdered by the PPP supporters. I do not believe that the ordinary presumption that the Board weighed and considered all of the evidence has been rebutted in this case. I do not believe that the Board's decision is unreasonable in this respect.
[50] The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
[51] Neither party wished to submit a serious question of general importance for my consideration for certification.
ORDER
[52] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"John A. O'Keefe"
J.F.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
January 20, 2005
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5561-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: USMAN CHAUDHARY
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: August 4, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF O'KEEFE J.
DATED: January 20, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Lani Gozlan
FOR APPLICANT
Amina Riaz
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Max Berger & Associates
Toronto, Ontario
FOR APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR RESPONDENT
Email this Content