Date: 20050118
Docket: IMM-967-04
Citation: 2005 FC 63
BETWEEN:
NASSOR MOHAMED
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PHELAN J.
[1] The sole issue in this judicial review is whether the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB) made a patently unreasonable finding as to changed country conditions in Tanzania.
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of Tanzania, claimed refugee protection based on political opinion and membership in a social group, the Pro-Civic United Front (CUF).
[3] Tanzania had suffered for several years under civil strife and discord between the CUF and the Chama Cha Maplnduzi (CCM) organizations. A political accord was reached in 2001 which was renewed in January 2002 between the two organizations.
[4] The IRB noted such facts as the existence of a mutually-settled accord (as opposed to one enforced by outside forces) that over 2,000 Tanzanians including MPs and CUF members had been repatriated; that steps had been taken, but not completed in all cases, to implement aspects of the accord; and that CUF members and their families are not targeted for abuse, harassment or arrest and detention.
[5] Overall the IRB favoured the documentary evidence in that "it comes from independent and reliable sources that do not have an interest in the outcome of this claim". That documentary evidence shows that changes in Tanzania are sufficiently meaningful to conclude that the Applicant's fear of persecution is not well-founded.
[6] The Applicant is, in essence, asking this Court to re-weigh the evidence regarding changed country conditions and reach a different conclusion from that of the IRB. This, the Court will not do.
[7] There is nothing patently unreasonable or even unreasonable about the way in which the IRB conducted its analysis or the basis upon which it reached its conclusion.
[8] This Court has recently dealt with the very same issues regarding changed country conditions in Tanzania. In both Alfarsy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2003 FC 1461 and Ndoto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC 279 this Court upheld the very same type of conclusions in respect of Tanzania. I adopt Justice Russell's concluding comment.
The fact that the Applicants disagree with the conclusions reached by the member does not make the conclusion wrong. There was no reviewable error in this regard.
[9] For these reasons the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question to be certified.
(s) "Michael L. Phelan"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-967-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: NASSOR MOHAMED v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: December 9, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: PHELAN J.
DATED: January 18, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Robert Gertler FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Ann Margaret Oberst FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Robert Gertler and Associates
Etobicoke, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. John H. Sims
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content