Date: 19990305
Docket: IMM-2489-98
BETWEEN:
SARWAR SHAIKH, DILKUSHAN MUHAMMAD
TALHA SHAIKH, HAFSA SHAIKH
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) which found the principal claimant to be a refugee according to the Convention, but rejected the claims of the principal claimant"s wife, minor children and mother, since they did not have a well-founded fear of persecution.
THE FACTS
[2] The applicants are all citizens of Pakistan. They lived together in Pakistan and were dependant on the principal claimant. He was an active member in the Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM) and the CRDD found that he was indeed persecuted as a result of the ongoing crackdown on the MQM.
[3] In April 1995, according to the CRDD"s decision, the police raided the principal claimant"s house. He escaped, "but the police harassed his parents and his wife, and stole items from his house." After subsequent events, he went into hiding in April 1996 and left Pakistan in April 1997.
[4] During the year the principal claimant was in hiding, his wife received three anonymous phone calls asking for his whereabouts. In September 1996, a group of Haqiqi came to his home and again asked his wife and mother where he could be found. The CRDD found that the "threats against the principal claimant"s life were made during these incidents. The claimant"s wife, mother and children were not harassed or threatened beyond being asked where the principal claimant could be found."
[5] The claimant"s wife, children and mother, all base their claims on the principal claimant"s allegations.
[6] The CRDD found that the testimony of the adult claimants was credible, plausible and consistent. It accepted the principal claimant"s claim to refugee status, but rejected the claims of the family members since they were not themselves subjected to persecution.
[7] The dependant claimants cases were analysed as follows:
| |
The principal claimant"s wife, children and mother have not been threatened or abused during the persecution of the principal claimant. The claimant"s wife and mother were questioned both be Counsel and the panel as to what they were afraid of in Pakistan. They both responded that they were afraid that the principal claimant would be harmed or killed in Pakistan, but they did not express that they, themselves, were in danger, despite many questions asked in different ways to them regarding this subject. |
|
| |
From the testimony of the claimants, it is clear to the panel that neither the Haqiqi nor the police have any interest in the principal claimant"s wife, children or mother. They lived in Karachi for one year while the principal claimant was in hiding. They received three anonymous phone calls and one visit from the Haqiqi all aimed at discovering the whereabouts of the principal claimant. They were not abused or threatened during these episodes. |
|
| |
Therefore, the panel determined that the four dependant claimants are not "Convention refugees." |
|
| Does the principle of family unity require that dependant claimants be found to be Convention refugees when the head of the family is found to be a refugee? |
|
ANALYSIS
[8] In a similar case Dawlatly v. MCI1, I was of the opinion that "according to the case law, there is no concept of family unity incorporated into the definition of Convention refugee, this Court having chosen to adopt a very narrow view of the definition." I cited to the same effect the decision of Nadon J. in Casetellanos v. Canada.2
[9] In the case at bar, the CRDD found that the dependant applicants did not have a well-founded fear of persecution themselves. The applicants do not contest this finding. They simply fear the persecution of the principal applicant and base their claims upon that fear. As the tribunal is bound by the definition of convention refugee.
[10] As I note that in Dawlatly "the Immigration Act has other means of ensuring that the dependants of a Convention refugee are granted permanent resident status", namely s. 46.04(1).
[11] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
JUDGE
MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC
March 5, 1999.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-2489-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: SARWAR SHAIKH
DILKUSHAN MUHAMMAD
TALHA SHAIKH
HAFSA SHAIKH
Applicants
AND
THE MINISTER
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTREAL (QUEBEC)
DATE OF HEARING: March 5, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
DATED: March 5, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Ms Claudette Menghile for the Applicants
Ms Marie-Nicole Moreau for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ms Claudette Menghile
Montreal (Quebec) for the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa (Ontario) for the Respondent[12]
__________________
1 (16 June 1998), IMM-3607-97 (F.C.T.D.).
2 [1995] 2 F.C. 190 (T.D.) at 199-201.
Email this Content