Date: 20010213
Docket: IMM-1458-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 62
BETWEEN:
HASHMAT AMIRI
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUTFY A.C.J.
[1] The Convention Refugee Determination Division found that the applicant, Hashmat Amiri, was neither a citizen of Afghanistan nor a member of that country's ethnic Tajik group and determined that he was not a Convention refugee.
[2] After a careful review of the transcript of the refugee hearing and the relevant documentary evidence, and despite the able submissions of the applicant's counsel, I have concluded that this application for judicial review of the tribunal's negative determination must be dismissed. These are my reasons.
[3] The applicant does not seriously contest the tribunal's conclusion that his national identity certificate ("the taskera") was not genuine. His taskera was allegedly issued in 1969. No satisfactory explanation was given for the appearance on the certificate of a seal which, according to the documentary evidence, was only used by government authorities between 1987 and 1992.
[4] Despite the tribunal's concern during the hearing concerning the national identity certificate, the applicant was nonetheless further questioned on other issues related to his alleged citizenship in Afghanistan.
[5] The applicant is fluent in Dari, one of Afghanistan's principal languages. The tribunal noted that his ability in Dari was not conclusive of his citizenship because the language is spoken in other countries. In my view, this specialized tribunal could take judicial notice that Dari was not spoken solely in Afghanistan. Even the applicant's counsel at the refugee hearing referred to one of the words spoken by the applicant as being common to the languages used in both Iran and Afghanistan (tribunal record, pp. 214-15). I do not agree that subsection 68(5) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, required the tribunal to confront the applicant with this knowledge.
[6] The applicant was not able to give his date of birth according to the Afghan calendar, although he was able to name certain of its months. The panel members noted that a person who lived in Afghanistan until his mid-twenties should have more readily answered their questions concerning dates of the Afghan calendar.
[7] The tribunal found that the applicant's responses concerning his four years in the military were not sufficiently detailed. His allegation of military service was not supported by documentary evidence.
[8] Similarly, the applicant did not mention language as being one of the differences between the Pashtun and Tajik ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Although there is some indication that the applicant himself spoke the languages of each of these two groups, he limited his response to the differences in the physical appearances between the members of both ethnic entities.
[9] The tribunal was sensitive to the applicant's psychological problems and requested medical information, prior to the substantive hearing, to satisfy itself that the applicant's condition did not unduly compromise his efficacy as a witness. The panel members nonetheless concluded that this condition did not explain the deficiencies in his testimony.
[10] Counsel argues that greater weight should have been given to the applicant's testimony concerning Afghanistan. However, his responses could well have been those of someone familiar with Afghanistan and its Tajik minority, but whose country of citizenship was elsewhere. His brief and sometimes vague answers must be read in the context of the negative finding concerning the authenticity of his national identity document. In these circumstances, it was open to the panel, on my review of the record, to conclude that these responses did not establish on a balance of probabilities that he was a citizen of Afghanistan. I have found no reviewable error to warrant this Court's intervention.
[11] Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question.
"Allan Lutfy"
A.C.J.
Ottawa, Ontario
February 13, 2001
Email this Content