Date: 20041012
Docket: IMM-5446-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1396
Ottawa, Ontario, this 12th day of October, 2004
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington
BETWEEN:
SHAUKAT ALI FAROOQI AND
FARDOUS SHAUKAT
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Farooqi and his wife Fardous Shaukat might well be refugees today; if only they were believed. The member of the Immigration and Refugee Board who heard their case was not satisfied they were whom they said they were. Even if they were, the rest of their story was not credible either. This is a judicial review of that decision.
[2] Theirs is a story of political violence in Pakistan, of goons murdering Mr. Farooqi's father, of countless arrests and threats of kidnapping and murder. They even moved to another part of Pakistan but could not escape the political poison, so they decided to leave.
[3] It is a nasty world in which we live; a world in which countless millions are persecuted just for being themselves. Torture and murder reign in many areas. It seems that as soon as peace comes to one valley, old or new enmities spring up in another.
IDENTITY IS CRUCIAL
[4] Because there is so much strife in this world, anyone can read a story and make it his (Dukefe v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 410, [2003] F.C.J. No. 571 (Q.L.), Simon Noël J., at paragraph 13). Thus, the first step for a person claiming refugee status is to establish his or her identity on a balance of probabilities (Keita v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 187, [2001] F.C.J. No. 376 (Q.L.), Pinard J.). If the Board was right in concluding that the applicant's identity had not been established, it is not necessary to analyze the evidence any further (Bhuiyan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 290, [2003] F.C.J. No. 406 (Q.L.), Simon Noël J.).
[5] In this case the Minister gave notice some three and a half months before the hearing that he intended to intervene to, among other things, file analyses on the Pakistan identity cards produced by the claimants. The Minister also formally requested that copies of all exhibits the claimants intended to present in support of their claim be sent to him as soon as possible in accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, and the applicable rules thereunder.
[6] The Board declared it was not satisfied with the claimants' identity on account of those analyses and because the claimants' new computerized identity cards, apparently issued many months earlier, were only produced at the hearing itself. Mr. Farooqi said that he had only received them a few days earlier from his brother. The Board was of the view he only decided to file them after learning that the Minister's representative decided to intervene in the hearing.
[7] The applicants' first identity cards were fake. They were chemically washed and altered. There was cutting and pasting; new photos and signatures were affixed. The Board not only made no patently unreasonable error in determining that the applicants had not established their identity, the Board was absolutely correct.
[8] Counsel for the applicants (and it is important to note he was not their counsel at the Board hearing) submitted that since new computerized identity cards were accepted for filing they should have been analyzed. From a few vague indications in the record, the Court was invited to assume that the applicants' former counsel was not aware that the Minister intended to intervene. Yet, there is no affidavit to that effect from the former solicitor.
[9] Counsel for the Minister suggested that if the Court were to look at the new identity cards produced at the hearing, it would be easily ascertained that they too were fake. This led the applicants' counsel to say there were other documents establishing identity such as residency permits.
[10] As far as I am concerned, once the identity documents which were offered as being real were found to be fake, the matter came to an end. There was no duty on the part of the Board to submit other documents for analysis. A legitimate claimant might well have reason to carry fake identification, but no reason to proffer that fake identification as real. Was the next set of documents better fakes? The Board should not be treated as a training school in which counterfeiters can practice their craft.
[11] Furthermore, had the Board looked at the residency permit it would have found that Mr. Farooqi was single. The claimants say they are married, but are a few years apart as to when!
[12] Mr. Farooqi says they did not get a fair hearing because during argument the Board member put down his pen and did not take notes. This is hardly an indication of bias, as alleged. In any event, the argument was transcribed.
[13] In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the additional grounds on which the Board found the claimants not to be credible.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify.
"Sean Harrington"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5446-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHAUKAT ALI FAROOQI AND
FARDOUS SHAUKAT
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTREAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 4, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: HARRINGTON J.
DATED: OCTOBER 12, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Idorenyin E. Amana FOR APPLICANTS
Thi My Dung Tran FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Idorenyin E. Amana FOR APPLICANTS
Montreal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content