Sandhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 904

Date: 20050624

Docket: IMM-8528-04

Citation: 2005 FC 904

Toronto, Ontario, June 24^th, 2005

Present:           The Honourable Mr. Justice Cambpell                                

BETWEEN:

        MUHAMMAD NADEEM AZHAR SANDHU, SHAZIA NADEEM, MOHAMMAD

                                    AMMAR NADEEM, ABDULLAH NADEEM and

                                               MOHAMMAD ZOHAIB NADEEM

                                                                                                                                           Applicants

                                                                           and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                In the present Application, the principal Applicant, Muhammad Nadeem Azhar Sandhu, a citizen of Pakistan ("the Applicant"), claims refugee protection on the basis of his fear of persecution by the Sippah-e-Sahaba ("SSP") in Pakistan.

[2]                In its decision, the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") acknowledges that the Applicant's claim is based on his fear of the SSP as Shia, and as finance secretary of his local Imambargah. However, the RPD found that the profile claimed by the Applicant "is not such that he would be targeted" (Tribunal Record, Vol. 1, p. 7)

[3]                The Tribunal Record contains numerous pieces of documentary evidence corroborating the Applicant's statement that he was financial secretary (see Tribunal Record, Vol. 2, pp. 537, 540, 544, 535, 592). Of the corroborating evidence, the only document mentioned by the RPD in its decision is that found at p. 544 of the Tribunal Record; the RPD's statement with respect to this document is as follows:

He presented a letter from the Imambargah in Pakistan, which is from one Imambargah, when he testified in his oral testimony that he was involved with nine different Imambargahs. The letter also does not include the duties he alleges he performed in the Imambargah, nor does it mention that the claimant was the reason why the Imambargah increased its membership and was able to raise funds. The claimant's explanation was that the purpose of the letter was to specify that he was the financial secretary.

The letter also does not mention anything about the family encountering problems because his wife was a Shia schoolteacher. The panel does not find his explanation reasonable and finds the claimant did not have the profile that he alleges.

(Tribunal Record, Vol. 1, p. 9)

[4]                The RPD's statement, just quoted, constitutes a manifestly confused credibility finding. At the hearing before the RPD, the Applicant gave his evidence with respect to his role as financial secretary (Tribunal Record, Vol. 2, pp. 667-668). In the statement, it appears that the RPD accepted the claimant's explanation that the purpose of the letter supplied was to support the Applicant's evidence that he was the financial secretary. Indeed, this finding conforms with the evidence the Applicant gave. However, the RPD goes on to say that the Applicant's explanation of the purpose of producing the letter was unreasonable, and, as a result, the finding is made that the profile advanced by the Applicant of being a financial secretary is not accepted. In my opinion, to say the least, this finding of the RPD is unsupported, is not clear, and thus, is contrary to law (see Maldonado v. M.E.I., [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.) and Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.).

[5]                As the Applicant's profile is an essential feature of determining the issue of state protection in Pakistan, I find that the reviewable error of law renders the decision as patently unreasonable.

                                               ORDER

Accordingly, I set aside the RPD's decision and refer the matter back to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.

                                                                         "Douglas R. Campbell"            

                                                                                                   J.F.C.                      

FEDERAL COURT

Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                           IMM-8528-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:               MUHAMMAD NADEEM AZHAR SANDHU, SHAZIA NADEEM, MOHAMMADAMMAR NADEEM, ABDULLAH NADEEM and MOHAMMAD ZOHAIB NADEEM

                                                                                            Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

                                                                                          Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:                       JUNE 23, 2005

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                             CAMPBELL J.

DATED:                                              JUNE 24, 2005

APPEARANCES BY:                 

Karina Thompson                                                          FOR THE APPLICANTS

Allison Phillips                                                   FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Robert Blanshay                                                                                                          

Barrister & Solicitor.

Toronto, Ontario                                                           FOR THE APPLICANTS

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada                              FOR THE RESPONDENT