Date: 20050617
Docket: IMM-9193-04
Citation: 2005 FC 867
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD UMAR FAROOQ
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 September 29, 2004, wherein the Board found the applicant not to be a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Muhammad Umar Farooq (the "applicant") is a citizen of Pakistan. He claims a well-founded fear of persecution based upon his political opinion. He also claims to be a "person in need of protection" based upon danger of torture as well as a risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment.
[3] The Board found the claimant had an Internal Flight Alternative ("IFA"), and denied his claim. Indeed, the Board found that the applicant had an IFA based on the fact that there were credibility issues concerning the legitimacy of the First Information Report ("FIR") and the warrant against him, which the applicant alleges support his fear.
[4] It was not unreasonable for the Board to grant no probative value to the FIR and the warrant given the implausibilities and the documentary evidence concerning false documents in Pakistan (Nasim v. Canada (M.C.I.), IMM-6455-00, 2001 FCT 1199). Specifically, the applicant originally answered "no" to questions 37 and 38 on his Personal Information Form ("PIF") on April 10, 2003 and then changed them to "yes" on February 7, 2004. By his own testimony the applicant learned of the FIR on April 4, 2003, six days before he submitted his PIF. This undermines the applicant's credibility since he would have known about the FIR and the warrant prior to submitting his PIF.
[5] The applicant argues that the Board did not give him a chance to respond to the allegations that the FIR and the warrant of arrest were fraudulent since it was first brought up to him in the decision and was not mentioned at all during the hearing. I do not agree. It appears from the Tribunal Record, at pages 403 and 404, that the applicant was confronted with his answers in his PIF about the existence of charges against him and the explanations provided were not found satisfactory. With regard to the implausibilities drawn by the Board, in many decisions this Court has decided that the Board was under no obligation to alert an applicant of its concerns about weaknesses in his evidence that could give rise to implausibilities (see, for example, Sarker v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1998), 45 Imm.L.R. (2d) 209, Khorasani v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-3198-01, 2002 FCT 936, Danquah v. The Secretary of State of Canada, IMM-105-94, November 17, 1994, and Appau v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, A-623-92, February 24, 1995).
[6] In any event, the respondent submits that the Board was not required to put all the inconsistencies to the applicant since it appears from the transcript of the hearing that the Board's interests in the existence of false charges were apparent and obvious and the applicant's counsel could have questioned him on this aspect of his claim (Toure v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-6906-03, 2004 FC 1388, Ngongo v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-6717-98, October 25, 1999, and Tekin v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-1656-02, 2003 FCT 357).
[7] Regarding the possibility of an IFA, the applicant must meet a very high threshold in order to establish that it would be unreasonable for him to seek refuge in another part of his country (Ranganathan v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.)). I believe the applicant failed to meet this burden, since the Board legitimately found that the FIR and warrant were not genuine, thereby according them no probative value, which means that the applicant is not at risk from the police or other Pakistani authorities. Moreover, the applicant is not married, does not have any dependents, is reasonably educated and has years of work experience. These are further reasons to support the position that it is not unreasonable for him to relocate to Karachi, a city of 12 million people, well removed from Wazirabad, the city where he lived.
[8] 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-9193-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MUHAMMAD UMAR FAROOQ v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 19, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: June 17, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Harry Blank FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Thi My Dung Tran FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Harry Blank, Q.C. FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content