Date: 20030526
Docket: IMM-1458-02
Citation: 2003 FCT 648
Ottawa, Ontario, this 26th day of May, 2003
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLANCHARD
BETWEEN:
TANVIR AHMAD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant, Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, seeks judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), rendered orally on February 19, 2002, which determined that he was not a Convention refugee.
Facts
[2] The applicant is a 27-year old citizen of Pakistan, from Gujrat. As a Pakistan People's Party ("PPP") party worker, he claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution from the Pakistan Muslim League ("PML").
[3] The applicant and his father were PPP workers. In 1993, a PML worker came to the family home to try to intimidate the applicant's father into joining a rival party, the PML. After the 1993 election, the two men continued to remain active with the PPP.
[4] New elections were announced in 1997. The applicant states that PML workers threatened him, his father, and PPP volunteers with death by shooting if they did not work for the PML. The applicant and his father reported the threats to the police, and as a result were detained overnight and released. The applicant states that the police said that they should leave the PPP and join the Muslim League.
[5] The applicant and his father sought help from a local PPP elected member, Mr. Mukhtar. However, on 7 February 1997, the applicant states that his father was fatally shot by three PML members while returning from a political meeting. The applicant states that three people were arrested for the murder of his father, but released five months later, and that no one was ever convicted of the crime.
[6] After the murder of the applicant's father, the applicant quit his work with the PPP. He stated that he had no problems with the PML between 1997 and 2001, and he concentrated on his work, an iron business.
[7] The applicant states that he became interested in political work again in February 2001, and began working in preparation for upcoming elections. He claims to have held a political meeting at his home in March 2001, attended by about one hundred supporters. Soon thereafter, he states that he began receiving threatening phone calls from supporters of the PML who mentioned that his father's murder is treatment that could await him. The applicant again sought help from Mr. Mukhtar, who told him to carry on his work. The applicant claims that it is when the applicant's mother learned that her son's life was threatened, that he decided to leave the country.
[8] The applicant states that he travelled to Lahore where he eventually met smugglers at the Gateway Hotel. On May 22, 2001, using a fake Pakistani passport, the applicant left Pakistan with a smuggler. He arrived in Canada via London and Seattle on May 24, 2001. The applicant made a refugee claim after his arrival. His evidence is that he learned from telephone conversations with his mother that the PML people come around every second or third day to ask about him.
[9] Among the documents tendered by the applicant was a copy of an e-mail sent from the Canadian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, to the applicant's counsel in Vancouver. The applicant states that it was sent by a person known to him, Mr. Khawar. In the e-mail, the writer is identified as the General Secretary of the PPP. The applicant states that Mr. Khawar works for the PPP and for the PML, that the information in the e-mail is incorrect and that the sender's intention was to discredit the applicant's refugee claim.
Board's Decision
[10] The Board rendered its decision orally at the close of the hearing on February 19, 2002, and provided written reasons on March 21, 2002.
[11] The Board acknowledged that the applicant, along with his father, were working members of the PPP and experienced problems in the run-up to the 1997 election. With regard to the applicant's claim that goons demanded that he and his father shift their allegiance to the PML, the Board stated that it seemed to be a "rather strange thing to ask of a person from another party", but accepted that that was the applicant's allegation.
[12] The Board stated that it found the applicant to be very vague in his testimony concerning when the election was to be held, and consequently drew an adverse credibility inference.
[13] With respect to the applicant's assertion at the hearing that he had received information from his mother by phone that the PML goons were stopping by the family home once every two to three days, the Board stated that the goons must then have come about 90 times, which was implausible. The Board stated that "even if it is highly exaggerated it still amounts to many more times than that noted in his PIF, where it states that they came for him at the house three times." The Board stated that it did not accept the applicant's testimony at the hearing and found that it was self-serving, exaggerated, and contradictory testimony.
[14] The Board found that the claim, as presented, was seriously implausible. It did not believe that a low-level worker in the PPP would be murdered for being involved in politics. The Board also noted that the applicant alleged to have received this same treatment as late as February 2001, after the military coup and well after the PML had been removed from government. The Board did not accept the suggestion by the applicant that the PML still controls his area of Gujrat, despite the fact of military rule throughout the rest of the country, as it was contradicted by the documentary evidence.
[15] The Board made an adverse credibility finding concerning the failure of the applicant to produce the police report relating to the complaints of thuggery in January 1997, and the failure to provide his father's death certificate. Both documents were said to be in the possession of the family in Pakistan. The applicant stated that his mother mailed copies of the documents nine weeks prior to the hearing, via registered mail. He stated that they did not arrive, and that his mother lost the receipt. The Board noted that the applicant gave contradictory answers concerning the reason for failing to produce the documents: he first said that he did not know that he needed them, and then later made statements implying that he had understood the importance of producing the documents. There is, therefore, no documentary evidence in support of the 1997 murder of the applicant's father.
[16] In addition, the Board noted that the notarized affidavit from the applicant's mother was not signed by her, which minimized its evidentiary value.
[17] The Board noted that an e-mail sent by the General Secretary of the PPP in Gujrat states that the applicant's father died in 1977 by electric shock, which contradicts his claim that his father died in 1997. While the applicant admitted that this person was indeed a worker for the PPP, he stated that the information given about him was incorrect, and that the author of the e-mail was in fact also working for the PML. The applicant stated that this person was intent on harming the applicant and his family "at every moment" and that, when his father died, this man was able to rise higher in the party. With respect to the e-mail, the Board stated:
The major [contradiction in the e-mail] is that it states his father died in 1977 by electric shock when the claimant was two or three years of age. It confirms that the claimant was a worker of the PPP and then states that Gujarat has become stable after General Musharif took over government. But there you go. That is a major contradiction with his claim and I do not know how much weight to give the information here. The claimant has suggested this was falsified to harm him. I doubt it. This was his own party's general secretary. It is probably true. I mean, I can say that because what I have heard from the claimant's own mouth is probably untrue. In any event, I do not need to go that far to find it probably true, but for the general secretary of his own party to be sending information that completely cuts out the heart of his own claim is damaging and must be added to the numerous other reasons I have given why the claim must fail for a lack of credibility.
I conclude from this passage that the Board preferred the evidence of the e-mail to the testimony of the applicant.
[18] Finally, the Board referred to the psychological assessment concerning post-traumatic stress disorder presented by the applicant. It stated that the report is largely based on "self-reports" and considered it to be replete with false allegations, and therefore gave it no weight.
[19] As a result, the Board concluded that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
Issues
[20] Did the Board err in making patently unreasonable credibility or plausibility findings or in ignoring documentary evidence when it determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
Standard of Review
[21] An assessment of credibility should not be interfered with unless it is patently unreasonable or based on extraneous or irrelevant factors: Ngue v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 383. As long as inferences drawn by the Board are not so unreasonable as to warrant intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review: Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] F.C.J. No. 732.
Analysis
[22] The applicant submits that the Board erred in relying on unreasonable assessments of credibility and plausibility and raises a number of points in support of that argument: (i) the Board erred in preferring the contents of the e-mail to the testimony of the applicant; (ii) the Board ignored documentary evidence concerning political violence in Pakistan and consequently erred in finding the applicant's story implausible; (iii) the Board erred in finding that the applicant was "vague in testimony" concerning when the next elections were to be held in Pakistan; (iv) the Board erred in ignoring evidence concerning the difficulty of procuring police reports in Pakistan; and (v) the Board erred in failing to mention the applicant's PPP membership card and a letter of support from the PPP.
[23] Before addressing the applicant's arguments, I will refer briefly to the Board's negative credibility assessments that are not contested by the applicant. The Board held that it was implausible that the PML goons would present themselves at the applicant's house 2 to 3 times a week, since this amounted to 90 times since the applicant's arrival in Canada. The Board also noted that the applicant gave contradictory answers when asked why he did not produce the police report and his father's death certificate: he first said he did not know he needed to produce them, and later implied that he realized the importance of procuring these documents. Finally, the Board found, and the applicant agreed, that the unsigned affidavit detailing evidence of his father's murder in 1997 was of no evidentiary value.
[24] On the evidence, I find that these adverse plausibility and credibility findings are well-founded and consequently not reviewable. I turn now to the applicant's submissions.
(i) E-mail
[25] The applicant submits that it would have been ludicrous for the applicant to disclose the e-mail from the PPP if he were not being truthful about his own claim. He submits that the e-mail was submitted for the purpose of substantiating the applicant's narrative and highlighting his ongoing risk and fears due to his political allegiance in Pakistan, that his testimony on this point was credible and believable, and that the Board erred in not finding the claimant credible.
[26] If the e-mail were submitted for the purpose of substantiating the claimant's narrative, it fails on that point given that a key element of the applicant's claim is the murder of his father by PML thugs. The Board noted that the e-mail states that the applicant's father died in 1977 by electric shock, not in 1997 as alleged by the applicant. Since the information contained in the e-mail directly contradicts the applicant's story, it is not unreasonable for the Board to make a negative credibility assessment, particularly in view of its other negative credibility findings. Similarly, the Board did not err in doubting the credibility of the applicant's story that the e-mail writer, the General Secretary of the PPP, was in fact a double agent for the PML and has been attempting to harm the applicant all along. On the whole of the evidence, I find that such a conclusion by the Board is not unreasonable and therefore not reviewable.
(ii) Documentary evidence
[27] The applicant submits that the documentary evidence supported the applicant's claim that political violence and intimidation do occur, and that the police are often controlled by political and criminal interests. The applicant refers to a July 2001 news article in which the murder of a PPP supporter, newly-elected "nazim", had been allegedly perpetrated by the losing PML candidate. The applicant suggests that this incident represents a "similar-style murder of a low-level political opponent".
[28] A "nazim" was referred to in testimony as a "district governor or administrator". During oral testimony, the applicant described his father as "the president of Mehmada in Gujrat". He stated that both father and son were PPP workers who supported the local candidates. It is not clear from the testimony that the applicant's father was an elected official. The applicant stated that his father stood for elections for the president of the PPP. In his PIF, the applicant stated that he worked with his father as a "normal PPP worker", that he and his father went door-to-door asking people to support the PPP candidates, and that his father organized meetings with the assistance of 20 workers.
[29] I question whether the murder of a newly-elected public official by the losing candidate is "similar to" the applicant's story. On the evidence, I am satisfied that the applicant's father was a party worker and/or party president, not an elected official. The Board stated that there was a "[...] serious want of plausibility in an outright murder like this taking place for nothing more alleged than ordinary political activity for one of the contending parties ...". The Board found the applicant's story to be implausible given that the applicant and his father were party workers. I find that the plausibility finding was reasonably open to the Board.
[30] In addition, the applicant argues that the Board ignored relevant evidence, since it stated that demands by thugs to change political allegiance seems to be "a rather strange thing to ask a person from another party." The applicant submits that the Board erred by implying that these threats by thugs consituted an implausibility which gave rise to a negative credibility inference. The applicant points to a number of articles in the documentary evidence that suggest that the ruling party in Pakistan has endeavoured to "incapacitate political opponents by subjecting them to false criminal charges, torture, intimidation, and lures or threats to change allegiance" and that the police are often involved in such abuses. This evidence was presented to the panel at the hearing.
[31] In its decision, the Board did state that a request to change political allegiance was "a strange thing to ask" but then went on to say "in any event, that is the allegation".
[32] There is no evidence that the Board ignored any of the documentary evidence. Given the Board's credibility and plausibility findings, which I found to be reasonably open to it, I am of the view that the Board did not err in weighing the said documentary evidence as it did.
(iii) The "vagueness" of the applicant's testimony on elections
[33] The applicant argues that the Board erred in finding that the applicant was "vague in testimony" concerning when the next elections were due in Pakistan. The applicant argues that his answer was "vague" because "election dates have not yet been announced", and refers to a January 2002 news report which stated that "He [General Musharraf] intends to bring forward general elections which were due to be held in October [2001]..."
[34] On a review of the evidence, I find no vagueness concerning the applicant's testimony with respect to his activities in 2001. Consequently, I find that the Board erred in so finding. There is no clear answer to the question as to when the upcoming election was due to be held when the applicant re-entered politics. However, it is clear from more recent evidence that the election was postponed. In any event, in view of the other negative credibility findings by the Board I do not find this error to be material.
(iv) Evidence concerning difficulty of procuring police reports
[35] The applicant submits that the Board ignored documentary evidence concerning the difficulties of procuring police reports and did not properly consider the applicant's statements about the documents he could not provide at the hearing. Further, the applicant states that he should not be prejudiced by the failure of his package to show up, nor because his mother misplaced the tracking number receipt for the package.
[36] At the hearing, the applicant stated that the FIR/police report was at his home in Pakistan:
Presiding Member: Do you have a police report though?
A: The FIR was in the police station
Presiding Member: Yes. Is there a copy so that I may see it, sir?
A: That is at home in Pakistan
...
Presiding Member: So do you have a death certificate?
A: That should be at home
Presiding Member: Where's "at home"? What does that mean?
A: My house in Pakistan
[37] Since the police report is at the applicant's home in Pakistan, it does not appear that documentary evidence concerning the difficulty of procuring police reports is relevant. The Board noted that some documents produced at the hearing were faxed to Canada from Pakistan and queried why the police report and his father's death certificate could not be similarly faxed. I note also that the applicant was advised by the Immigration and Refugee Board, in a letter dated November 20, 2001 (three months before the hearing), that "the presiding member requests that the claimant provide records of police information and his father's death certificate". I find that the Board's adverse inferences concerning the failure to produce these documents are not so unreasonable as to warrant intervention.
(v) Other documentary evidence
[38] The applicant submits that the Board erred in failing to mention the following documentary evidence: the applicant's PPP membership card and a letter of support from the PPP party stating that the opposition party is trying to torture the applicant and requesting the protection of the Canadian government. The Board did not appear to dispute the fact that the applicant was a PPP member. Therefore its failure to refer to the membership card in its reasons is of no consequence.
[39] Concerning the second document, the Board did not mention the letter of support in its reasons. It would have been preferable if the Board had referred to this letter. However, in view of its determination concerning the applicant's credibility and its finding that the important documents - the death certificate and police report - were not produced for the hearing, I am of the view that the Board's failure to deal with the PPP letter is not determinative.
Conclusion
[40] The applicant has failed to persuade me that the Board committed a reviewable error in rendering its decision and consequently the judicial review will be dismissed.
[41] The parties have had the opportunity to raise a serious question of general importance as contemplated by section 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, and have not done so. I do not propose to certify a serious question of general importance.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The judicial review is dismissed.
2. There is no serious question of general importance to be certified.
"Edmond P. Blanchard"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1458-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: Tanvir Ahmad v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: February 5, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: BLANCHARD J.
DATED: May 26, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Maureen Kirkpatrick FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Pauline Antoine FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Larson Boulton Sohn Stockholder FOR APPLICANT
P.O. Box 26, - 6th floor
609 West Hastings St.
Vancouver BC V6B 4W4
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
900 - 840 Howe Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2S9
Email this Content