Date: 20040827
Docket: IMM-7228-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1180
Ottawa, Ontario, August 27, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
MUSTANSIR ALI AND SAIMA ALI
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This in an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration Refugee Board (Board) dated August 26, 2003, wherein the Board determined that the Applicants, Mustansir and Saima Ali, were not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
ISSUE
[2] Was it patently unreasonable for the Board to find that the Applicants lacked credibility and to give no weight to certain documentary evidence?
[3] For the reasons below, I answer in the negative and will therefore dismiss this application for judicial review.
BACKGROUND
[4] The Applicants allege a well-founded fear of persecution by reasons of their political opinion and membership in a particular social group.
[5] The allegations were summarized as follows in the tribunal's reasons. The Claimants come from the village of Jhandewali, district of Gujrat. After completing his grade 10 education, the principal Claimant (Claimant) worked at his family farm.
[6] The Claimant and his wife allege that they had been members of the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz group (PML-N) "since 1990's" (sic). He also formed a farmer's association to protect the rights of the farmers in his area. In 1998, he contested against Ch. Iqbal, the local President of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and won a seat in the union council election. During the election campaign, he was harassed and threatened by the PPP goons.
[7] After the overthrow of the PML government in October 1999, the Claimant and his wife continued their political activities. In July 2000, they participated in the rally protesting against the sentencing of Nawaz Sharif. In March 2001, they attended the protest held by the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy. As a consequence of their political activism, they were arrested and detained by the police.
[8] On May 21, 2001, the goons attempted to kidnap the Claimant's wife because she helped a woman who had been victimized by Ch. Iqbal, the police, the military government and Colonel Iftikhar. On the same evening, the Claimant was also attacked by goons, but he managed to escape. Fearing for his safety, he and his wife left their home. The next day, the police looked for the Claimants accusing they that they had engaged in anti-government activities.
[9] After hearing the news, the Claimants went to Lahore from where they left Pakistan. They arrived in Canada on June 24, 2001, and claimed refugee protection two days later.
[10] According to the Claimant, the authorities in Pakistan have issued First Information Reports and warrants against him and his wife since they left the country.
[11] In its decision, the tribunal determined that the Applicants did not discharge the burden of proof to establish their claim for refugee protection by credible or trustworthy evidence.
ANALYSIS
[12] It is trite law that the standard of review in cases involving credibility findings is patent unreasonableness.
[13] In order to come to the conclusion that the Applicants were not credible, the Board offered detailed reasons for its decision, citing several contradictions and implausibilities in the Applicants' evidence which had to do with central aspects of their refugee claim, as well as the principal Applicant's demeanour during his testimony.
[14] Contrary to the Applicant's argument, the Board can indeed base its decision on the Applicant's behaviour at the hearing, his aptitude to answer questions in an honest and clear manner, the coherence and the uniformity of the answers in order to appreciate his credibility.
[15] The Applicant also argues that the omissions in his testimony compared to what he wrote in his Personal Information Form (PIF) should not be held against him. I agree with the Respondent that the Board was entitled to find that the Applicant's failure to mention, during his testimony, important facts which he mentioned in his PIF undermined his credibility. The Applicant also states that the PIF should be used to give the overall picture and not details of his story. I would respond that the PIF must contain all important facts and that failure to include such facts may lead to a negative finding as to credibility (Basseghi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1867 (T.D.) (QL) at paragraph 33).
[16] According to the Applicant, the Board was not entitled to find it implausible that Ch. Iqbal who was President of the PPP would have the kind of power alleged by the Applicants. They argue that the Board had not looked through the reports on Pakistan which show that persons with influence, particularly in small towns, control the police and other authorities. I cannot agree that the Board err on this point as Ch. Iqbal's influence is totally unsubstantiated in this file, with no specific evidence nor documentary evidence on this point.
[17] As for the Applicant's submission that the Board unreasonably ignored Exhibits P-9 to P-17, it should be noted that the Board specifically explained in its decision the reasons why it doubted the authenticity of Exhibits P-9, P-10, P-16 and P-17. As for the other exhibits, the Board granted them no probative value not solely because they came from a country where it is easy to obtain forged or fraudulent documents, but more importantly because of the many non-credibility findings in the Applicant's testimony. At page 4 of its reasons, the Board stated:
Documentary evidence indicates that forged or fraudulent documents including party membership cards, letters and legal documents are easily obtainable in Pakistan. This evidence, when assessed with the many non-credibility findings in the claimant's testimony led the panel to grant no probative value to Exhibit P-9 to Exhibit P-17. (My Emphasis)
[18] It is also well settled in the caselaw that the Board is not bound to give weight to documentary evidence submitted by an applicant if it does not believe the facts related in the testimony. In Hamid v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1293 (T.D.) (QL), at paragraph 21, Nadon J. stated:
[...] where the Board is of the view, like here, that the applicant is not credible, it will not be sufficient for the applicant to file a document and affirm that it is genuine and that the information contained therein is true. Some form of corroboration or independent proof will be required to "offset" the Board's negative conclusion on credibility.
[19] The same principle was stated in, amongst other cases, Ahmad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 471, [2003] F.C.J. No. 636 (T.D.) (QL). Still on the issue of documentary evidence still, I agree with the Respondent that the Board does not have the obligation to expertise documents, as the Applicant suggests (Akindele v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 37, [2002] F.C.J. No. 68 (T.D.) (QL), at paragraph 5).
[20] The Board also adjourned the first hearing because counsel for the claimants had some doubts about the quality of the services of the interpreter. Later, a certificate was issued and the interpreter's work was found accurate on the whole. At the second hearing, another interpreter was appointed.
[21] For the above reasons, I cannot come to the conclusion that the Board erred in a patently unreasonable manner. Therefore, this application is dismissed.
[22] Neither counsel recommended the certification of a serious question of general importance. I am satisfied that none arises out of this matter. No question will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7228-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MUSTANSIR ALI AND
SAIMA ALI
v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: August 25, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
DATED: August 27, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Harry Blank FOR APPLICANT
Evan Liosis FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Harry Blank FOR APPLICANT
Montreal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec
Email this Content