Date: 20051130
Docket: IMM-3072-05
Citation: 2005 FC 1629
Ottawa, Ontario, November 30, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE W. ANDREW MACKAY
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD CHAUDHARY ASIF
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of, and an Order setting aside, the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, dated May 3, 2005 which determined that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "Act").
Background
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan, in his early 40's, who arrived in Canada on April 16, 2004 and three days later applied for refugee protection. He claimed that he would be persecuted by the Sunni, especially by certain members of the Lakshri Mohammadu, if he returned to Pakistan.
[3] He claims that in his home village of Mahey, in Gujrat, Pakistan, where he lived and operated a grocery business, he also held the office of the Stage and General Secretary of the Jafria Youth Wing, an element of the Shi'a faith. He was responsible for leading certain religious activities and events within his religious community. As a result, he claims that members of the Sunni faith, particularly of the Lakshri Mohammadu, tried to force him to forego his Shi'a faith, and when he refused, in February 2003, they fired upon him and burned his grocery store.
[4] In May 2003, he and his brother were beaten by the same men who had earlier harassed him. Twice he reported them to the local police, and later to higher police authority. Ultimately, no charges were laid against them, he believes because the police were bribed.
[5] In March 2004, while he was participating in a religious procession, it was attacked by armed and masked Sunnis who started firing weapons into the crowd. He was knocked down but escaped to Faisalabad where he spent three days in hospital. While there he learned that the Sunnis who had originally attacked him the previous year had issued a police report against him accusing him of "stimulating and spreading religious violence and discrimination among the Muslin community."
[6] He decided then to leave the country. He went to Karachiwhere after two weeks he succeeded in making arrangements with a smuggler. He returned to Gujrat for a week to raise money to pay the smuggler, then returned to Karachi where he waited until April 14, before leaving Pakistan. He arrived in Toronto on April 16, 2004 using a fraudulent British passport.
The panel's decision
[7] The panel accepted the existence of significant and sometimes violent disruptions between Sunni and Shi'a followers within the Muslin community in Pakistan. It accepted that the claimant was involved in religious violence in his area, the village of Mahey in Gujrat. Yet it found that his problems appeared to be highly localized and of a personal nature in light of its perception of his profile as simply that of one among many Shi'as in Pakistan with similar problems, and the local profiles of those who harassed him. There was said to be no evidence, despite the applicant's testimony, that his tormentors were part of a large "family" organization that could pursue him wherever he might go in Pakistan.
[8] The panel set forth its primary conclusion early in its decision, as follows:
Having concluded [...] that an internal flight alternative (IFA) is available to the claimant, the panel has not made any finding in relation to the well-foundedness of his fear of persecution in Mahey, District Gujrat.
[9] In the panel's view, with few exceptions which would not include the applicant because of his local low profile, there is reasonable freedom of movement in Pakistan, and he would have the option of relocating to Karachi or Islamabad. Though he testified he could not move to Islamabad because of limited finances, or to Karachi because there were problems there, the panel did not accept his testimony as rebutting a viable internal flight alternative. In its view, the political/religious profile of the applicant and his limited influence would not lead to his being traced or pursued outside his home village for religious or political reasons. Thus, he would not face persecution by police or government agents, nor by those who had earlier harassed him, at the suggested IFA locations.
[10] The IFA locations suggested by the panel, in its view were the basis of its negative answers in relation to the applicant's claim to be a Convention refugee, and to any claim that he was a person in need of protection under paragraph 97(1)(a) or 97 (1)(b) of the Act. He had failed to show he would be persecuted for Convention reasons throughout Pakistan or that he would be subject personally to a danger of torture, or a risk to his life or of cruel and unusual punishment if he were to return to Pakistan and relocate in one of the suggested internal flight alternatives.
The issue
[11] For the applicant it is urged that the panel erred in law by failing to assess the well-foundedness of his fear of persecution in his home area, the village of Mahey, in Gurjat.
Analysis
[12] Technically, the panel's consideration of internal flight alternatives, away from his home area where he owned property and where his wife and family and his brother lived, was inappropriate if indeed the applicant was not considered to be subject to persecution in his home area for a Convention reason. While the panel states that it "has not made any finding in relation to the well-foundedness of his fear of persecution in Mahey, District Gurjat", its conclusion and its discussion of an IFA impliedly assume that even if there were such persecution in his home area the existence of an IFA precludes a finding that he would face persecution for a Convention reason throughout the whole of Pakistan. That finding of an IFA is said to be equally applicable in rejecting any basis for funding him to be a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Act.
[13] In my opinion, the only issue concerning the finding of an IFA in either Islamabad or Karachi is whether there was evidence to support the panel's conclusion as reasonable. The panel relied upon evidence of the law in Pakistan supporting freedom of movement, apart from exceptional cases for political party leaders and religious leaders, and it found the applicant's profile was not that of a prominent political activist. Rather it found his profile is on shared "by hundreds if not thousands of Shias throughout Pakistan", not one that would lead to his being traced or pursued outside his local area for political or religious reasons.
[14] It was the panel's conclusion in light of the evidence that those who had harassed the applicant in his home area were not likely to have the interest or resources to pursue him in the suggested IFA's. Moreover, it discounted a warrant, issued against the applicant, as improperly completed, and insufficient evidence that police or government agents would pursue and persecute him in the suggested IFA locations.
[15] After careful consideration of the applicant's submissions, in my opinion, the conclusions reached by the panel, in relation to the existence of IFA locations as reasonable, though not spelled out with precision, were supportable on the evidence. It found that the applicant was not persuasive in seeking to establish that the suggested locations were unreasonable in his case. Further, having found that a reasonable IFA location existed within Pakistan, the panel's conclusions were reasonable, on the evidence before it, that the applicant was not a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection under the Act.
[16] In the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[17] The parties made no suggestion of a general question of importance for certification for the consideration of the Court of Appeal. No question is certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"W. Andrew MacKay"
Email this Content