Date: 20020717
Docket: IMM-1169-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 796
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD ALI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] Mr. Mohammad Ali (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board Convention Refugee Division (the "Board"), dated March 1, 2001. In its decision, the Board determined the Applicant not to be a Convention refugee.
FACTS
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who claimed Convention refugee status in Canada on the basis of his political opinion and membership in a particular social group, that is the Pakistan Students Federation ("PSF") and Pakistan Peoples Party ("PPP"). He claims that he had been harassed, threatened and injured by members of the Pakistan Muslim League. He further alleges that he had been arrested, detained and beaten by the police and that charges had been laid against him after he participated in a nation-wide strike in September, 1999.
[3] The Applicant left Pakistan on September 25, 1999 and arrived in Canada on October 7, 1999. He claimed Convention refugee status approximately one month after his arrival in Canada. His claim was heard before a single member panel on December 6, 2000.
[4] The Board expressed serious reservations about the Applicant's credibility. In particular, the Board was concerned with a package of documents, addressed to the Applicant, which had been seized by Canada Customs. The package was apparently sent to the Applicant by his father. The package contained a number of documents, including blank PSF and PPP membership cards, blank PPP letterhead, blank letterhead of a member of the Provincial Assembly which was purportedly signed by him, photographs of the Applicant and his family, blank sheets of paper, a letter from an advocate, documents entitled, "Proclaimed Offender" and a Detention Order, and a document listing dates and referring to office workers in the PPP.
[5] The Board found that the explanation offered by the Applicant concerning the documents to be unsatisfactory. It concluded that the Applicant intended to complete the blank documents and use them in support of his refugee claim.
[6] The Board concluded that none of the Applicant's evidence concerning his activities with the PPP to be credible or trustworthy. Ultimately, the Board found that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee and there was no credible or trustworthy basis upon which the Board could have determined that he was a Convention refugee.
APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS
[7] The Applicant argues that the Board erred in law by misconstruing the evidence and making findings of fact without regard to the evidence. He submits that the Board improperly weighed the evidence.
[8] The Applicant argues that the Board erred when it made adverse credibility findings against him solely on the basis of the documents seized by Canada Customs, when there were no internal inconsistencies in the remaining evidence.
[9] The Applicant submits that the Board failed to consider the totality of the evidence because it did not consider credible documentary evidence which was placed before it.
RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS
[10] The Respondent argues that the Board considered all the evidence but concluded that it was untrustworthy and unreliable in light of the package of blank documents sent to the Applicant by his family.
[11] The Respondent also submits that negative credibility findings can be made as long as the tribunal had valid reasons for doing so and states its reasons in clear and unmistakable terms, and there is no basis for intervention by the Court.
ISSUE
[12] The sole issue arising from this application is whether the Board erred in failing to consider the totality of the evidence or in basing its decision on an erroneous finding of fact, made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the evidence before it.
ANALYSIS
[13] In my opinion, a review of the record here, including the transcript of the Applicant's hearing before the Board, shows that the Board did consider the evidence before it. The foundation for its decision is the negative credibility finding made against the Applicant.
[14] Credibility findings are clearly within the mandate of the Board; see Hilo v. (Canada (Minister of Employment and immigration) (1991), 130 N.R. at 236 (F. C. A.).
[15] The Board discounted the Applicant's evidence, including the documentary evidence he submitted, in consequence of its conclusion that the seized documents were sent to the Applicant solely for the purpose of enhancing his claim for Convention refugee status. In other words, the Board concluded that the Applicant planned to rely on the intercepted documents for the purpose of substantiating a claim for Convention refugee status which would not otherwise exist.
[16] The Applicant claims that the Board erroneously failed to consider the totality of the evidence. He argues that some of the documentary evidence was credible and supported his claim, and that this evidence should have been addressed by the Board in its decision.
[17] The Board made a finding pursuant to section 69.1 (9.1) of the Immigration Act, R. S. C. 1985, c. I-2 as amended, that there was no credible basis to the Applicant's claim. This finding is related to a general finding of credibility but because it impacts on a person's ability to remain in Canada prior to execution of a removal order, the Court has found that recourse to section 69.1 (9.1) requires consideration of the totality of the evidence before a Board. In this regard, the Applicant relies on Foyet v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 187 F.T.R. 181.
[18] In my opinion, the Board did consider the totality of the evidence after first reaching a conclusion about the credibility of the Applicant, as appears from the following passage:
The panel finds that none of the claimant's evidence regarding his PPP activities, nor relating to the existence of false cases against him is credible or trustworthy, particularly when it is considered that documents from Mr. Haider were contained in the same envelope as the blank documents intended for the claimant's purposes.
The panel further notes that additional documents were provided by Mr. Usman Haider, however, given its findings above, the panel gives no weight to these or other documents later filed by the claimant and gives no weight to any documents received by whatever method in support of the claim before or after the seizure.
Tribunal Record, page 6
[19] There is no basis for intervening in the decision made by the Board. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[20] There is no question for certification.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
"E. Heneghan"
J. F. C. C.
OTTAWA, Ontario
July 17, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1169-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Muhammad Ali v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: Thursday, July 11, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN
DATED: July 17, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Birjinder Mangat FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Kerry Franklin FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Birjinder Mangat FOR APPLICANT
Calgary, Alberta
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content