Date: 20000517
Docket: IMM-3587-99
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD NAZMUL HUSSAIN
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAISJ.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated June 22, 1999, refusing to grant the applicant refugee status in Canada.
FACTS
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. In May 1988, he became a member of the Jatiya Party (JP), Khilagaon division.
[3] On October 10, 1991, he was injured when members of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) attacked a truck that was carrying JP members to a rally.
[4] He claims that he was attacked by the police on January 28, 1992, and severely beaten with batons.
[5] In March 1993, the leaders of the JP asked the applicant to accept a teaching position. He agreed to do so. In April 1993, a teacher and two students were attacked by members of the BNP. The centre where he was teaching was later set on fire.
[6] On August 25, 1994, the applicant was injured in another attack by the BNP. He says that he laid a complaint with the police, but no action was taken.
[7] He was arrested along with eleven other party members in June 1995, while they were participating in a demonstration. The police beat them. After being released, he was unable to walk normally and had to undergo medical treatment.
[8] The leaders of the JP met on September 1, 1995, to organize a demonstration for September 3, 1995. Both the police and the BNP attacked the demonstrators, and a short time later gunshots were heard. Three people were killed and more than twenty injured, including the applicant. He had to be hospitalized.
[9] While in hospital, he was told that the police had accused him of acting against the interests of the country and had carried out a raid on his home. The same day, BNP members invaded the applicant's home and threatened to kill him unless he stopped his political activities.
[10] The applicant then took refuge with a friend for a period of seven weeks. On October 24, 1995, the applicant fled to India where he stayed until November 18, 1995, the date he left for Canada.
[11] He arrived in Canada on November 20, 1995, and claimed refugee status here the same day.
[12] He states that he fears persecution by reason of his political opinion and his membership in a particular social group.
ANALYSIS
[13] The Federal Court of Appeal stated in Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315:
There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review. In Giron, the Court merely observed that in the area of plausibility, the unreasonableness of a decision may be more palpable, and so more easily identifiable, since the account appears on the face of the record. In our opinion, Giron in no way reduces the burden that rests on an appellant, of showing that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division could not reasonably have been drawn.
[14] In this case, the Refugee Division found that the applicant was not credible.
[15] When verification was sought from the writer of the letter that was meant to confirm the applicant's status as a member of the executive, it was discovered that Mr. Salauddin had, in fact, neither signed it nor affixed a seal, although the letterhead was certainly that of the political party. Mr. Salauddin also told the investigator that the applicant was a member of the party but did not hold any office within it.
[16] After being confronted with this damaging fact, the applicant hastened to ask for a second letter amending the first. That letter stated that the applicant was a member of the JP but did not state that he was a member of the executive, as alleged by the applicant. Mr. Salauddin explained that he did not trust the investigator and did not want to say too much. He also said that the investigator had been to see him in 1996. The Refugee Division did not accept
Mr. Salauddin's explanation that he was trying to protect the applicant's safety. The CRDD noted that revealing that the applicant was a member of the JP did nothing to protect the applicant's safety. The CRDD also pointed out that the investigation had begun in 1998 and not in 1996.
[17] As the trier of fact, the Division was in a position to gauge the credibility of documents and to determine their probative value. That is what it did with the two letters.
[18] As a result of this discovery, the applicant's credibility was seriously undermined; although his fear was based on membership in a particular social group, the supporting evidence left serious doubts about this issue.
[19] In addition, as a result of the applicant's testimony about his responsibilities as a member of the executive, the CRDD was satisfied that the applicant had not been targeted, particularly since the documentary evidence corroborated this conclusion by stating that members of the opposition were not targeted. The CRDD also noted that the Awami League has a very tolerant attitude, and that the secretary general of the JP had been appointed Minister of Communications in the AL government.
[20] Mr. Justice Linden stated in Zhou v. Canada (M.E.I.) (July 18, 1994) A-492-91 (F.C.A.):
The material relied on by the Board was properly adduced as evidence. The Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the claimant. There is no general obligation on the Board to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely.
[21] The applicant has not satisfied me that the Convention Refugee Determination Division made an error such as would warrant intervention by this Court.
[22] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[23] Counsel did not submit any question for certification.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 17, 2000
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-3587-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMAD NAZMUL HUSSAIN
v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 9, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF MR. JUSTICE BLAIS
DATED: MAY 17, 2000
APPEARANCES:
RENÉ LABROSSE FOR THE APPLICANT
SYLVIANE ROY FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
RENÉ LABROSSE FOR THE APPLICANT
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content