Date: 20050224
Docket: IMM-2515-04
Citation: 2005 FC 291
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PHELAN J.
OVERVIEW
[1] The Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) determined that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection because he had a viable internal flight alternative in Hyderabad. The Board failed to address the fact that the Applicant's cousin (incorrectly translated as "brother") were murdered, after the Applicant had fled Pakistan, by the same people as the Applicant said posed a threat to his own life and that of his family.
BACKGROUND
[2] The Applicant is a 50 year-old male citizen of Pakistan and a member of the Sopah-e-Sahaba (SSP). The Applicant claims to fear Mr. Ahsan Saman, a member of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and a political opponent of the Applicant.
[3] The Applicant's evidence is a recitation of political and religious involvement, physical assault, attacks on his home and attempts on his life. The source of these assaults and threats is Saman who is allegedly motivated by revenge for the disclosure of his crimes by the Applicant.
[4] While the Board made no finding on the well-foundedness of the Applicant's fear in his home city of Gujranwala, the Board did find that the Applicant had been targeted by Saman and his associates.
[5] The Board went on to conclude that whatever the level of threats, they would disappear once the Applicant moved. This was based on the Board's conclusion that the Applicant's profile was only locally relevant and that once outside his home region, he would be relatively safe.
[6] The Board did not accept the Applicant's contention that Saman and his associates would track him down anywhere in Pakistan. The Board had a number of other difficulties with the Applicant's story and with his conduct. The Board also concluded that the Applicant had not rebutted the presumption of state protection.
ANALYSIS
[7] The standard of review for an IFA finding is patent unreasonableness. (See Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.). Moreover, section 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act also sets a standard of review with regard to factual findings. That paragraph indicates that these findings cannot be made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before the tribunal.
[8] Had it not been for the failure to address the murder of the Applicant's "cousins/brother", the Court would not engage in a review of the Board's decision. The Board is entitled to significant deference on its factual findings.
[9] However these murders are of such significant and potentially corroborative effect that the events ought to have been addressed. The Board could well weigh and reject the evidence for sound reasons, however, it is not possible to discern whether the Board addressed its mind to this significant factor.
[10] For this reason, this application for judicial review will be granted. The matter will be remitted back to the Board to be determined by a differently constituted panel.
[11] There is no question to be certified.
(s) "Michael L. Phelan"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2515-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: January 13, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: Phelan J.
DATED: February 24, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Birjinder P.S. Mangat FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. H. Brad Hardstaff FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Mr. Birjinder P.S. Mangat
Barrister & Solicitor
Calgary, Alberta FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content