Date: 20050617
Docket: IMM-9578-04
Citation: 2005 FC 847
BETWEEN:
Imitiaz AHMAD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated October 19, 2004, wherein the Board granted the Minister's application to vacate the decision granting "Convention refugee" status to the applicant.
[2] Imtiaz Ahmad (the applicant) is a citizen of Pakistan. On March 14, 1997, the Refugee Division determined that he was a Convention refugee.
[3] On July 11, 1999, the applicant attempted to enter Canada with a passport from the United Kingdom ("U.K."), bearing his photograph, under the name Imtiaz Waheed Ali, date of birth September 3, 1959. After the Immigration Officer stamped his passport, the janitor brought a Pakistani passport and a Canadian record of landing pertaining to the applicant that he had found in the garbage. When interrogated, the applicant declared that the U.K. documents were false.
[4] At the hearing for the application to vacate the applicant's refugee status the Minister alleged the applicant made several false declarations in his Personal Information Form. The declarations were as follows: the applicant did not use the name Umer Khatab to enter Canada, as the U.K. passport shows that he arrived in Canada on July 11, 1995, on his real identity, Imtiaz Waheed Ali. His date of birth is not November 1, 1953 as his passport shows September 3, 1959. The applicant omitted to state that he is a U.K. citizen since 1975, as shown in his citizenship certificate issued on July 30, 1975, and as shown by his U.K. passport valid from April 27, 1974. The applicant made false declarations concerning his previous residence and travels. The applicant made false declarations concerning his passport, travel and identity documents, as well as false declarations concerning his travel to Canada. He made false statements concerning the significant incidents that caused him to seek the protection of Canada.
[5] As a result of these allegations, the Board found that the applicant had misrepresented or withheld material facts relating to his claim and allowed the Minister's application to vacate the claim for "Convention refugee" status.
[6] The relevant provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "Act") are as follows:
| 109. (1) The Refugee Protection Division may, on application by the Minister, vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection, if it finds that the decision was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter.
(2) The Refugee Protection Division may reject the application if it is satisfied that other sufficient evidence was considered at the time of the first determination to justify refugee protection.
(3) If the application is allowed, the claim of the person is deemed to be rejected and the decision that led to the conferral of refugee protection is nullified.
|
|
109. (1) La Section de la protection des réfugiés peut, sur demande du ministre, annuler la décision ayant accueilli la demande d'asile résultant, directement ou indirectement, de présentations erronées sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou de réticence sur ce fait.
(2) Elle peut rejeter la demande si elle estime qu'il reste suffisamment d'éléments de preuve, parmi ceux pris en compte lors de la décision initiale, pour justifier l'asile.
(3) La décision portant annulation est assimilée au rejet de la demande d'asile, la décision initiale étant dès lors nulle.
|
|
|
|
|
[7] The applicant submits that the Board, in reaching its conclusion that the applicant was Imtiaz Waheed Ali, a citizen of the U.K. born on September 3, 1959, ignored documents which established that he was, in fact, Imtiaz Ahmad, a citizen of Pakistan, born on November 1, 1953. Specifically the applicant alleges that the Board did not deal with the applicant's two Pakistani passports or his Pakistani National Identity Card.
[8] This Court may infer that an erroneous finding of fact "without regard to the evidence" was made if the administrative Board under review failed to mention in its reasons some evidence before it that was relevant to the finding (Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35). The applicant's allegations cannot be supported as the Board clearly stated in its decision at page 5 that "[t]he panel is not in position to state with certainty the Respondent's real identity as he was able to obtain authentic identity documents under different names." I believe this statement is sufficient to prove that the Board did look at the applicant's passports and National Identity Card and it is not necessary that the Board mention each piece of evidence individually.
[9] Concerning the other documents the applicant argues were ignored by the Board, namely a marriage certificate and his wife's application form for permanent residence in Canada, they were set aside as not being properly before the Board, as it appears at page 190 of the Tribunal Record.
[10] In making its decision, the Board also relied on the numerous false declarations and omissions by the applicant. The applicant, in his affidavit and in his testimony admits to having fabricated certain parts of his claim. At paragraph 8 of his affidavit he states that he was advised to hide the existence of the U.K. passport, to lie about his itinerary, and to add a false incident of persecution in Pakistan, in order to make it appear that his arrival had been in August 1995. He also states at paragraph 10, that "[o]ne lie leads to another." These admissions on their own are sufficient to find that the applicant misrepresented or withheld material facts pursuant to section 109 of the Act.
[11] Moreover, after reviewing the evidence the Board concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate with credible or trustworthy evidence that he is not a citizen of the U.K., and there remains no other credible sufficient evidence on which the Board would have found that the applicant is a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection."
[12] I am of the opinion that the Board did not fail to ignore evidence before it, nor did it commit a patently unreasonable error in its interpretation of that evidence.
[13] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 17, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-9578-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Imitiaz AHMAD v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 17, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: June 17, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Pia Zambelli FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Édith Savard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Joseph W. Allen FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content