Date: 20041004
Docket: IMM-2755-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1366
Toronto, Ontario, October 4th, 2004
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
AMIN SHAH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Amin Shah (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the "Board"), dated March 12, 2004. In its decision, the Board determined that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Canada in April 2003, following a sojourn in the United States of America between November 1999 and April 2003. He claimed protection in Canada because he feared persecution in Pakistan on the basis of political activities as an active member of the Pakistan Muslim League ("PMLQ").
[3] The Board found much of the Applicant's evidence to be implausible. It concluded that he had failed to establish both the subjective and objective elements of his claim. In particular, the Board discounted the reliability of an arrest warrant that the Applicant claimed had been issued against him and on the basis of its negative finding relative to that item of evidence, concluded that none of the incidents relied on by the Applicant had occurred.
[4] The Board also made a finding that the documentary evidence did not support the Applicant's claim that adherents of the PMLQ were subject to persecutory acts. It concluded that, in any event, the Applicant had access to the internal flight alternative ("IFA") in Karachi.
[5] The decision of the Board is subject to review on the grounds of patent unreasonableness; see Conkova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 300 (T.D.).
[6] I am satisfied that the Applicant has shown that the Board here erred by making findings without regard to the totality of the evidence, particularly in relation to the issue of persecution of members of the PMLQ. That matter is addressed in the documentary evidence and the Board failed to give reasons why it discounted that evidence. As well, the Board described the Applicant as a member of the Shia religion when that issue or identity was not raised by the Applicant in his Personal Information Form ("PIF") or his testimony before that Board.
[7] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Board for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Board for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-2755-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: AMIN SHAH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: HENEGHAN, J.
DATED: OCTOBER 4, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Frederick S. Wang For the Applicant
Martin Anderson For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Frederick S. Wang
Bay Street Immigration Lawyers, P.C.
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20041004
Docket: IMM-2755-04
BETWEEN:
AMIN SHAH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content