Date: 20020117
Docket: IMM-1264-01
Ottawa, Ontario, the 17th day of January, 2002
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
Hamid ASHRAF
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision rendered on February 8, 2001 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L
Date: 20020117
Docket: IMM-1264-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 34
Between:
Hamid ASHRAF
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 rendered on February 8, 2001 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. He alleges that he was persecuted there because of his Shi'ite religion.
[3] The Refugee Division refused to grant the applicant refugee status, finding he was not credible and, after assessing the evidence, that it was not reasonable to believe that he would be persecuted should he return to his country of nationality.
[4] The applicant argues, first, that the Refugee Division, in its analysis, failed to consider the letter filed as exhibit P-5. It appears from a review of the record that the panel neither overlooked nor rejected without an analysis the document in question but simply decided not to assign any probative value to it, which it is clearly within its jurisdiction to do.
[5] More particularly, the applicant alleges that the Refugee Division did not consider the fact that letter P-5 indicates that an arrest warrant was issued for his arrest and that no reason was provided in support of the rejection of this documentary evidence. It has been held in Singh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (June 23, 1995), IMM-4256-94, and upheld in Edomsky v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1311 (T.D.) (QL), that when the documentary evidence is contradictory in some respects, as is the case here, the Refugee Division may validly accept certain items and reject others. Need it be recalled as well that the Refugee Division's perception that the applicant is not credible may amount in fact to a finding that there is no credible basis for his refugee claim (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at page 244).
[6] The applicant further submits that the Refugee Division erred in selecting only certain irrelevant passages from the documentary evidence in order to dismiss his claim. The Federal Court of Appeal, in Florea v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (QL), held that the panel is presumed to have weighed and considered all of the evidence before it failing proof to the contrary. In the case at bar, I am of the opinion that the conclusions of the Refugee Division are supported by the documentary evidence that it considered most appropriate.
[7] Finally, the applicant submits that the recent and relevant documentation showing the existence of a disturbing situation in Pakistan was not considered by the panel. In Tawfik v. M.E.I. (1993), 137 F.T.R. 43, Mr. Justice MacKay stated, at page 46:
. . . It is acknowledged that that decision is not binding on the panel in this case, which was required to make its own decision based on the evidence before it. Yet is it urged that it illustrates that different decision-makers may come to different and inconsistent conclusions in cases which at least on their surface appear to bear similarities. It is unfortunate if members of the Immigration and Refugee Board are left without some current information developed by the CRDD itself about changing country circumstances that would be of assistance to different panels in assessing the broad and underlying circumstances upon which any determination of changes in country circumstances or of the existence of an IFA must inevitably be based. Nevertheless, that does not assist the applicant in this case. The Board in each case must make its determination on the basis of the evidence before it.
[8] In this case the document to which the applicant refers is not in the file presented to the Refugee Division. Furthermore, it seems to me that the applicant is asking this Court to substitute its assessment of the evidence for that of the Refugee Division, which is certainly not its role in an application for judicial review. In view of the evidence that was at its disposal, the Refugee Division could with reason reach the conclusion it did concerning the allegation of blasphemy, the probative value of the documentary evidence and the credibility of the applicant.
[9] In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not discharged his burden of demonstrating that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division, a specialized tribunal, were unreasonable (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at pages 316 and 317). The Refugee Division was free to base its decision on the documentary evidence it considered most appropriate and I am not satisfied that it could not reasonably conclude as it did (see Zhou v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (July 18, 1994), A-492-91 (F.C.A.)). It is my view that this panel discharged its obligations without committing any reviewable error. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 17, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: IMM-1264-01
STYLE: Hamid ASHRAF v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December 4, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: January 17, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Marie-Claude Paquette FOR THE APPLICANT
Mario Blanchard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Marie-Claude Paquette FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content