Docket: IMM-3455-16
Citation:
2017 FC 582
Ottawa, Ontario, June 13, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NASIRA MAZHARY
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
In 1989, Ms Nasira Mazhary’s brother-in-law was
kidnapped by the Khadamat-e Aetla'at-e Dawlati, which is Afghanistan’s State
Information Service (KHAD). She, her husband, and their three sons fled to
Pakistan, where the couple had four additional children.
[2]
When Ms Mazhary’s husband was attacked in 2011,
the family believed the Taliban was responsible, a reprisal for the fact that their
daughters received an education, had careers and supported the International
Organization for Migration. Concerned for their daughters’ safety, the parents
told them not to come home. A few months later, her husband received a phone
call telling him that he was lucky to have been “saved” that day. Ms Mazhary applied
for refugee protection from outside Canada.
[3]
In 2015, an immigration officer
in Islamabad interviewed Ms Mazhary, her husband, and one of their daughters, Palwasha.
The officer accepted Palwasha’s claim, but denied Ms Mazhary’s and those of the
other family members included in her application. The officer found that Ms
Mazhary did not face well-founded fear of persecution and was ineligible for
asylum in Canada.
[4]
Ms Mazhary argues that the officer’s decision
was unreasonable because it neglected to take account of the risk the family
faced in Pakistan and failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting her
claim. In addition, she contends that the officer failed to consider whether
she met the criteria for admission to Canada as a member of the country of
asylum class. Ms Mazhary asks me to quash the officer’s decision and order
another officer to reconsider her application.
[5]
I can find no basis on which to overturn the
officer’s decision, so I must dismiss this application for judicial review. In
my view, the officer’s decision was not unreasonable on the evidence provided.
[6]
The sole issue is whether the officer’s decision
was unreasonable.
II.
The Officer’s Decision
[7]
In the officer’s decision letter, he stated that
Ms Mazhary had not shown that she faced a well-founded fear of persecution in
Pakistan, and did not meet the criteria for acceptance as a member of the
country of asylum class because she was not “seriously and
personally affected by . . . civil war, armed conflict or massive violation of
human rights in Afghanistan”.
[8]
The officer’s notes contain additional grounds
for rejecting Ms Mazhary’s application. The officer found that most of the
problems the family faced in Pakistan were related to the dangers facing their
daughters, but the daughters had already been approved for permanent residence
in Canada. The son who periodically works in Afghanistan did not appear to have
any problems there. The officer rejected Ms Mazhary’s claim, but accepted that
of her daughter, Palwasha.
III.
Was the Officer’s Decision Unreasonable?
[9]
Ms Mazhary maintains that the officer failed to
acknowledge the risk to all members of the family arising from the fact that
the daughters were allowed to obtain higher education and pursue careers. Mr
Mazhary had been targeted on that basis. It was likely, therefore, that Ms
Mazhary could equally be persecuted. Further, Ms Mazhary argues that the
officer’s reasons were inadequate because he failed to provide a sufficient
analysis for his conclusion that she was not entitled to refugee protection
even though her daughter was. Finally, Ms Mazhary submits that the officer
failed completely in his consideration of whether she met the criteria of the
country of asylum class.
[10]
I disagree with Ms Mazhary’s submissions.
[11]
Any risk to the family that derived from the
activities of the daughters was no longer present; the daughters are no longer
in Pakistan. The officer provided an adequate explanation for why Ms Mazhary no
longer faced a well-founded risk of persecution.
[12]
With respect to the claim to be a member of the
country of asylum class, the officer noted that the events that caused Ms
Mazhary to fear living in Afghanistan took place more than 25 years ago. There
was no evidence before the officer of an ongoing risk. In fact, as mentioned, the
evidence showed that Ms Mazhary’s son periodically works in Afghanistan without
difficulty.
[13]
Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the
officer’s decision was unreasonable on the evidence.
IV.
Conclusion and Disposition
[14]
The officer considered the evidence supporting
Ms Mazhary’s claim and his conclusion that she had not provided sufficient
proof of persecution in Pakistan or danger in Afghanistan was not unreasonable
on the evidence. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial
review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for
certification, and none is stated.
Email this Content