Date: 20050208
Docket: IMM-2599-04
Citation: 2005 FC 178
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD KAMRAN REHMAN
KANEEZ FATIMA KAMRAN
MOHAMMAD WAQAS REHMAN
MOHAMMAD FARZ REHMAN
MAHEEN REHMAN
WAQAR HAIDER
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SIMPSON, J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") dated February 18, 2004 (the "Decision"), in which it was determined that the Applicants are not Convention Refugees and are not persons in need of protection.
THE FACTS
[2] The principal applicant is Mohammad Kamran Rehman (the "Applicant"). The other applicants are his wife, his children and his older brother Waqar Heider. All are citizens of Pakistan.
[3] It is alleged that, between 1990 and 1992, the Applicant was an active member of the political organization known as Mutahada Quami ("MQM"). It is further alleged that, due to his involvement with the MQM, he was tortured by Pakistani authorities in 1992 and thereafter ceased all official activity with the MQM.
[4] The Applicant alleges that in 1997, he began to work for the MQM in an unofficial capacity. Again, violence followed and he promptly ceased his activity. In spite of this, he alleges that he was again tortured in 2000 and that there was violence against his wife on January 5, 2001.
[5] On April 6, 2001, the applicants left Pakistan and came to the United States. On April 8, 2001, they made a refugee claim in Canada.
THE DECISION
[6] At the beginning of the Decision, the RPD notes that the hearing was initially adjourned for three months, then for one year and finally for a further ten months. During each of these adjournments, the applicants were instructed to seek corroborating evidence of their claim.
[7] The RPD finds that, although the applicants provided further evidence about the ongoing problems faced by the MQM in Pakistan, there was no corroborating evidence submitted regarding the Applicant's specific circumstances, especially regarding the allegations of torture in 2000. Because the record includes letters from the MQM regarding the torture in the period from 1990-92 but no letter about the events of 2000, the Panel was not satisfied that the Applicant was tortured in 2000. Further, regarding the alleged attack on the Applicant's wife in 2001, the lack of a medical record from the hospital which allegedly provided her treatment caused the RPD to doubt that that incident had occurred.
[8] With regard to country conditions, the RPD relies on evidence submitted by the Applicant which shows that the MQM is currently enjoying a favoured role in the Singh province. The RPD concluded that there is no reasonable or serious possibility that the Applicant or his family members would be persecuted in Pakistan based on their allegiance to the MQM.
[9] In dealing with the issue of whether or not there is serious possibility of death or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment should the applicants return to Pakistan, the RPD concluded with a single sentence that read, "The panel finds there is not."
THE ISSUES
( i) Delay
[10] The Applicant submits that adjournments of fifteen months, twelve months and eleven months constitute a denial of procedural fairness. It is argued that it is not reasonable for the RPD to recall and fairly assess testimony provided over such a long period of time.
[11] In my view, the record shows that the first delay, which lasted only three months, was caused by the illness of the presiding member of the RPD and that there was only one further adjournment. It was the direct result of allowing the Applicant time to assemble corroborative evidence and submit more documentation. The third hearing did not follow an adjournment but involved a re-opening of the matter at the Applicant's request after the Decision had been reserved.
[12] In particular, the Tribunal Record discloses that:
· after the first adjournment the applicants were asked, in writing, to produce corroborative documentary evidence when the hearing resumed in March 25, 2002.
· at the March 25, 2002 hearing, the applicants did not present any corroborative evidence. The decision on their claim was reserved
· on October 13, 2002, the applicants submitted further general evidence for consideration by the panel
· on October 21, 2002, the applicants sought a further hearing to submit more evidence
· a further hearing was held on March 19, 2003
· the applicants submitted further evidence on April 22, 2003, on August 13, 2003, and in December 2003
· after considering all the evidence submitted by the applicants, the Decision was issued on February 18, 2004
[13] It is my view, that, in these circumstances, the Applicant's submissions are without merit.
(ii) Protection
[14] The Applicant submits that the RPD erred when it failed to give separate reasons for rejecting the applicants' claim for protection.
[15] In the circumstances of this case in which the only risk alleged is the conduct of the MQM, this submission is not persuasive. In my view, the RPD's reasons in support of its conclusion that the applicants to not face a serious possibility of persecution in Pakistan by or because of the MQM also apply to its finding under section 97. No separate reasons were required.
CONCLUSION
[16] For all these reasons this application will be dismissed.
"Sandra J. Simpson"
JUDGE
Ottawa, Ontario
February 8, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-2599-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMED KAMRAN REHMAN ET AL
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SIMPSON J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 8, 2005
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Osborne G. Barnwell
For the Applicants
Ms. Negar Hashemi
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Osborne G. Barnwell
Barrister & Solicitor
North York, Ontario
For the Applicants
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20050208
Docket: IMM-2599-04
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED KAMRAN REHMAN ET AL
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content