Date: 20080207
Docket: IMM-420-06
Citation: 2008
FC 163
Toronto, Ontario, February 7, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
AMELIA
NASRUN
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The present
Application concerns a claim for protection by a citizen of Indonesia who is a Pentecostal
Christian of Chinese ethnicity. In rendering its decision rejecting the
Applicant’s claim, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that:
On a balance of probabilities, the
claimant was able to practice
her Christian faith in Indonesia and would be able to continue
to do so should she return to Indonesia.
(RPD’s Decision, p. 7)
In challenging this statement, Counsel for the Applicant
argues that the RPD failed to accurately and clearly identify the persecution
and risk grounds advanced in the Applicant’s claim. I agree.
[2]
The
Applicant’s written argument placed before the RPD identifies that, given the
nature and frequency of the Applicant’s activities related to her Christian
faith, she is at serious risk of persecution in Indonesia because “persons,
such as Pentecostals, who speak to others, including non-Christians, about
their faith are at greater risk during times of inter-religious tensions than
are Christians of other demonstrations” (Tribunal Record, p.312). Indeed, the
RPD found that Indonesia is included in a Watch List
of nations where violations of religious freedoms is serious (Decision, p.11),
and there is religious and ethnic unrest in the country (Decision, p.13).
However, the RPD did not provide any analysis of the argument placed before it
with respect to enhanced risk to evangelistic and proselytizing Christians.
[3]
It is important
to note that on the record before the RPD is a statement of the fact that the
Government of Indonesia prohibits proselytizing by a recognized religion on the
grounds that such activity, especially in areas heavily dominated by another
recognized religion, potentially is disruptive (Tribunal Record, p. 89).
Indeed, the RPD found that Christians who have attempted to convert Muslims
have suffered state sanction for this conduct. However, the RPD dismissed the
relevance of this evidence because the Applicant did not try to convert Muslims
while in Indonesia. In my opinion, this finding seriously
misses the point being advanced in the Applicant’s argument. The point is that
the criminalization of the type of religious conduct which is at the heart of
the Applicant’s religion makes her subject to state sanctioned persecution and
risk in Indonesia. I find that the RPD’s
failure to clearly understand this, and deal with it in the decision,
constitutes a reviewable error.
[4]
As a
result, I find that the RPD’s decision is patently unreasonable.
ORDER
Accordingly, I set aside the RPD’s decision and
refer the matter back for re-determination before a differently constituted
panel.
“Douglas
R. Campbell”
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-420-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: AMELIA
NASRUN v. THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO,
ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 5, 2008
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: CAMPBELL J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 7, 2008
APPEARANCES:
GERALDINE
MACDONALD FOR THE APPLICANT
DAVID JOSEPH FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Geraldine
MacDonald
Barrister and
Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR
THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy Attorney
General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content