Date: 20040325
Docket: IMM-3656-03
Citation: 2004 FC 454
BETWEEN:
AHMED MD GIASH UDDIN
demandeur
et
LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ
ET DE L'IMMIGRATION
défendeur
REASONS FOR ORDER
HARRINGTON J.
[1] Had Mr. Ahmed's claim for refugee status been heard the day he left Bangladesh, he may well have been accorded refugee status. However, time changes everything, at least in this case. Mr. Ahmed is a citizen of Bangladesh who came to Canada in May 2001 in order to seek political asylum. He was an active member of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and sought refuge in Canada on the grounds that he was targeted by goons of the Awami League Party, which was then in power. However, in the elections of October 2001, the Bangladesh National Party won more seats than any other, thus allowing it to form the government.
[2] Following a hearing on March 31, 2003, a panel of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board determined that Mr. Ahmed was not a Convention refugee and was not a person in need of protection. Mr. Ahmed seeks a judicial review of that decision.
[3] The Panel did not challenge Mr. Ahmed's involvement in the BNP which culminated in his becoming a local organizing secretary, that he participated in a range of political activities, was targeted by Awami League goons, and sought help from the police but without avail.
[4] As the Panel itself says, it "assessed this claim in function of the present country conditions and, in particular, the change of circumstances regarding the political situation in Bangladesh". In reaching its decision that Mr. Ahmed did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his political opinion or activities in the sense of being unable or unwilling to avail himself of state protection, or that he was otherwise in need of protection, the Panel briefly referred to some of the exhibits before it. Mention was made of the decision of the new government to replace the national and Dhaka police chiefs, the arrest of Awami League members in an effort to control political violence, and various arrests pursuant to the 1974 Special Powers Act. Indeed, Amnesty International stated that members of the Awami League have been targeted by the BNP.
[5] The Panel, in the circumstances, did not find it plausible that Mr. Ahmed as a member of the ruling party and an organizing secretary would be targeted by the Awami League. Rather one would think that a member of the ruling party and an organizing secretary would be protected.
[6] Counsel for Mr. Ahmed submitted that the application for judicial review should be granted because there was an insufficient analysis of the change of circumstances and because it had not yet been established that such change of circumstances as there might be was anything more than temporary.
[7] Although the reasons of the Panel are short, it is obvious that it carefully considered the conditions as then known in Bangladesh. The material before it included papers from the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board issued in May, October and December 2002, and a news release from Amnesty International published in September 2002 which referred to the arrest of Awami League activists.
[8] Mr. Ahmed's counsel placed particular reliance on three cases. Ahmed v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 156 N.R. 221 (F.C.A.) dealt with political violence in Bangladesh. The Panel in that case found that although the claimant might have been in danger in his own village, there was an internal flight alternative available to him as he had spent some time in Chittagong. Apart from the internal flight alternative, which was not discussed by the Panel in this case, the Court of Appeal held that the mere fact of a change of government is not in itself sufficient to meet the requirements of a change of circumstances which would render a genuine fear of persecution unreasonable and thus no longer tenable.
[9] Kifoueti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 164 F.T.R. 116 dealt with a change of government in the Republic of Congo. The Panel found that there was no evidence that the new regime would act as the old had. Tremblay-Lamer J. stated at paragraph 17:
The change is too recent to assess whether the forms of persecution will continue under the new regime. Given that there is no evidence that the new regime would not behave like the old one, in my view it was unreasonable for the panel to dismiss the applicant's well-founded claim.
[10] The same holds true in the case of Tariq v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2001 FCT 540.
[11] In this case the new regime had been in place for a year and a half and there was a great deal of evidence before the Panel that very strong action was being taken against Awami League goons.
[12] In the case before me, changes have actually taken place and so it cannot be said that the Panel erred in its findings of fact or in its conclusions of law. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Yusuf v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995), 179 N.R. 11, there is no separate "test" by which alleged changes in circumstances are to be measured. The issue as to whether the claimant now has a well-founded fear of persecution is an issue for factual determination.
[13] For these reasons, the application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division that Mr. Ahmed is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection shall be dismissed.
[14] No question of general importance arises.
"Sean Harrington"
Judge
Montréal, Quebec
March 25, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3656-03
STYLE OF CAUSE:
AHMED MD GIASH UDDIN
demandeur
et
LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ
ET DE L'IMMIGRATION
défendeur
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 22, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARRINGTON
DATED: March 25, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Stephen J. Fogarty FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Evan Liosis FOR RESPONDENT
Ms. Annie Van der Meerschen
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Allen & Associés FOR APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content