Date: 20041001
Docket: IMM-8034-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1319
BETWEEN:
NAZIR AKHTAR
domiciled at 7445 De L'Epee, Unit No. 310
Montreal, Quebec H3N 2E4
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
200 Rene-Levesque West, 5th Floor, East Tower,
Montreal, Quebec H2Z 1X4
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 August 27, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicant is not 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] Nazir Akhtar (the "applicant") is a citizen of Pakistan who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of imputed political opinions. The applicant also claims to be a person in need of protection.
[3] The Board found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" because it found that his claim was not credible.
[4] The Board seriously questioned the applicant's allegations pertaining to his membership in the Pakistan Muslim League ("PML"). In fact, the applicant contradicted himself with respect to the date on which he claims to have joined the political party and about other details regarding his political involvement, such as a mistake regarding the number of the ward in which he was nominated secretary. A review of the Tribunal Record reveals that the applicant testified that he joined the PML in January 1999 even though his card indicates that he joined in 1997. In addition, the Board notes that he testified he was appointed secretary of ward 22/5 but he indicated in his Personal Information Form narrative that it was ward 622/5. Furthermore, the applicant was unable to recall when the first alleged attack took place and he failed to provide any evidence to support his allegations that he had been severely attacked on April 24, 2002 and required medical treatment. In light of these major inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant's claim, the Board was entitled to question the credibility of his allegations. Contrary to the applicant's submissions, I find that the Board's conclusions do not rest on speculation but rather, on the internal consistency of the applicant's allegations. In response to the Board's questions, the applicant could provide no satisfactory explanation for these inconsistencies. The Board clearly explained its reasons for doubting the applicant's credibility on the basis of these discrepancies and I am satisfied that it acted reasonably in concluding that the applicant was not credible.
[5] The Board also considered in its evaluation of the applicant's credibility the fact that he had failed to provide any evidence, such as plane tickets or a passport. The Board found that the applicant had made no effort to obtain such documents. Rule 7 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-228, sets out that "the claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they were not provided and what steps were taken to obtain them". In this case, the Board considered the applicant's explanation that smuggling agents typically request that travel documents be returned to them upon arrival to the destination. In light of the Board's finding that many aspects of the applicant's claim were not credible, it is entirely reasonable for the Board to attach great importance to documentation which would have supported his allegations and to draw an adverse inference from the fact that the applicant failed to submit such documentation (see Elazi v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 212 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), Museghe v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1539 (F.C.T.D.) (QL) and Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)).
[6] With respect to the applicant's written allegation that the Board breached principles of fundamental justice because it pressured the applicant to proceed with the hearing of his claim although he informed the Board that he was not properly prepared, it is important to note that at the hearing scheduled for August 13, 2003, the applicant did not appear due to illness and the hearing was postponed to August 27, 2003. There is no reason why the applicant should not have been prepared to go forward with the hearing of his refugee claim at that time and I find that this submission is without foundation.
[7] For the reasons outlined above, I am of the opinion that the Board committed no patently unreasonable error in its disposition of this case. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 1, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-8034-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: NAZIR AKHTAR v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: August 18, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: October 1, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Dan Bohbot FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Michel Pépin FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Dan Bohbot FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content