[1] This is an application for judicial review under section 72 of theImmigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act) of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration of the Refugee Board (the Board) dated November 20, 2003 wherein the applicant was found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Act.
[2] The applicant is a 32-year-old Shia citizen of Pakistan. The applicant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of an anti-Shia Muslim fundamentalist group of Sunni Muslims (the ASSP) since he is a Mohajir and belongs to the Shia Muslim religious faith. On May 9, 2002, the applicant arrived in Canada and made a refugee claim.
[3] In support of his refugee claim, the applicant submits that he comes from a well-known Shia family descended from the prophet Mohammad. In 1987, the applicant alleges that he joined the All Pakistan Mohajir Student Organization (APMSO), and later, in 1988, he joined the Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM) in order to deal with problems of discrimination against the Shias in his community. However, following the split of MQM in two groups and the ensuing violence between the said groups, the applicant alleges that he stopped taking part in MQM activities in 1992 but still continued to assist the Shias. His voluntary activities basically consisted of arranging "for government permission of our religious programs" and "recording videos" of the teachings of religious scholars.
[4] The applicant claims that on the night of December 8, 1992, he was attacked by two people. The applicant further alleges that the said persons were members of the Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan (the SPP) a Sunni extremist group, who tried to kidnap him. However, the applicant's cousin and a neighbour successfully rescued him before it was too late. On the following day, the applicant lodged a complaint against the ASSP and asked for protection, but to no avail. The applicant alleges that from that day on, he was the object of numerous death threats and the following month, the Allied Picture Studio, where he copied his video, was burned down. On the third week of December 1992, the applicant claims that he left Pakistan for Bangkok. Afterwards, the applicant left Bangkok and arrived in the United States on July 16, 1993 and made a refugee claim. The said claim was rejected. In 1996, the applicant applied for a Canadian immigrant visa but was refused. On May 9, 2002, the applicant arrived in Canada and made a refugee claim. The said refugee claim was rejected.
[5] The Board essentially found that the applicant did not present credible or trustworthy evidence that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, that he would have adequate state protection upon his return to Pakistan and that the situation has changed since his departure from Pakistan. The Board found that the applicant's evidence was fraught with significant inconsistencies, omissions, contradictions and implausibilities. In addition, the Board concluded that the applicant's claim of fear of persecution was not supported by the objective documentary evidence and failed to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be available to the applicant if he returned to Pakistan.
[6] The applicant has failed to convince me that the Board's findings are perverse or capricious or that the Board ignored relevant evidence or otherwise acted in a patently unreasonable manner. Overall, I find that the Board's findings are supported by the evidence and are reasonably open to the Board.
[7] There were numerous inconsistencies, omissions or implausibilities within the applicant's Personal Information Form (PIF) regarding the alleged identity of the applicant's persecutors implicated in the incident of December 8, 1992, the applicant's travel to Canada and the absence of any allegation of fear of the MQM. More specifically, the applicant had no knowledge that his attackers were actually members of the ASSP. His allegations were therefore based on mere speculation. Furthermore, the Board rightly found that the applicant's evidence with respect to his travel is contradictory and confusing. The Board identified many inconsistencies with the dates provided by the applicant regarding his departure from Pakistan and arrival in America. On this matter, the applicant stipulated in his U.S. refugee claim that he had left Pakistan in the middle or at the end of November 1992, which may imply that he was not implicated in the incident of December 8, 1992. In addition, the applicant wrote in his PIF that he worked in Karachi between November 1991 and June 1993 which would imply the same. Moreover, the applicant omitted to include in his PIF any allegation regarding his fear of persecution at the hands of the MQM. In fact, the applicant only mentioned his fear of the MQM after he was specifically asked by the Refugee Protection Officer if he feared anyone else besides the SPP in Pakistan.
[8] In addition, the evidence submitted by the applicant in support of his Canadian refugee claim is totally inconsistent with the evidence presented in support of his U.S. refugee claim. In fact, the applicant's U.S. refugee claim was not even based on religious grounds. The applicant did not mention he was a Shia supporter in the U.S. refugee claim. The applicant's U.S. refugee claim was solely based on fear of persecution for his political opinion concerning the MQM and the Pakistan authorities, which was omitted from his current claim before the Board.
[9] In my view, the Board gave the applicant ample opportunities to amend his story and provide complete information in connection with his refugee claim but the applicant was not able to provide any satisfactory explanation. Consequently, the Board was authorized to conclude that the applicant had not provided credible or trustworthy evidence in support of his refugee claim and had not satisfied his burden of establishing that he had a well-founded fear of persecution upon returning to Pakistan.
[10] Moreover, I note that an applicant's lack of credibility may affect the weight given to documentary evidence, and in appropriate circumstances may allow the Board to discount that evidence. Refugee status does not exist at large, and the applicant must credibly establish that the agents of persecution are targeting him personally (Songue v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 1020 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); Hossain v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 160 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); Nasim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1199, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1624 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); Waheed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 329, [2003] F.C.J. No. 466 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)).
[11] I also find no basis to overturn the Board's finding that there is not a serious possibility that the applicant would face any risk of serious harm in Pakistan as alleged. For example, the applicant did not provide the Board with any trustworthy evidence which would distinguish him from the other 27 millions Shia citizens of Pakistan and therefore prove that he was personally targeted by the SPP. On this matter, the Board found that the applicant is not the object of persecution since he is a modest professional who, over a decade ago, provided limited volunteer service to for the Shia community and has not held any prominent position within the said community.
[12] In conclusion, the Board took into account all the evidence submitted to it before rendering its decision and concluded inter alia that the applicant had not provided sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence in support of his refugee claim or that he would not personally face a risk to his life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. These findings of fact which were reasonably opened to the Board are fatal and dispose of the applicant's claim. It is therefore unnecessary to examine whether the Board has erred in finding also that there is adequate state protection available for the applicant upon his return to Pakistan. No question of general importance is raised by the parties and none shall be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the present application for judicial review be dismissed.
"Luc Martineau"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1286-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: SYED SIBTE ALI NAQVI v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 1, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: MARTINEAU J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 2, 2005
APPEARANCES:
MAK SULTAN FOR THE APPLICANT
MARGHARITA BRACCIO FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MAK SULTAN FOR THE APPLICANT
TORONTO, ONTARIO
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content