Date: 20101122
Docket: IMM-19-10
Citation: 2010 FC 1170
Ottawa, Ontario, November 22, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
IFTIKHAR AHMAD BUTT
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Butt arrived in Canada from Pakistan in 2008 and sought refugee protection on the basis that he and his
family had been attacked by political opponents there. A panel of the
Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Mr. Butt’s application because it
disbelieved his account of events and felt Pakistan was, in any event, able to protect him.
[2]
Mr. Butt argues that the Board erred by failing
to explain adequately why it dismissed his claim. In my view, looking at its
reasons as a whole, the Board’s reasons were sufficient in the circumstances
and I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
[3]
The sole issue is whether the Board gave an
adequate explanation for concluding that Mr. Butt’s account of events should
not be believed.
II.
The Board’s Decision
[4]
The Board found that Mr. Butt had proved that he
was an active member of a political party called the Pakistan Muslim League –
Quaid-e-Amam Group (PML-Q). His main adversaries were members of a rival party,
the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N).
[5]
The Board went on to note that a claimant’s testimony
is presumed to be true. However, where his or her testimony is devoid of credibility,
the Board may find there is simply no reliable evidence supporting the claim
(citing Maldonado v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
[1980] 2 FC 302 (CA), and Sheikh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1990] 3 FC 238 (CA)).
[6]
The Board then referred to a letter Mr. Butt had
supplied from a PML-Q candidate, named Mr. Khawaja Hassan. The letter made no
mention of the PML-N. Instead, it attributed Mr. Butt’s departure to a group
called the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). Further, the letter did not mention
the assaults Mr. Butt had claimed to have endured. The Board also noted that
Mr. Butt had claimed to have contributed significantly to Mr. Hassan’s
campaign. Yet, the letter referred to Mr. Butt merely as a donor and supporter.
The Board determined that the letter deserved no weight.
[7]
The Board also considered documentary evidence
about the relationship between political parties in Pakistan. It cited isolated reports of PML-Q officials and supporters being
harassed and arrested. However, police responded appropriately and those who
were arrested were afforded due process. There was no documentary evidence
supporting Mr. Butt’s claim of being attacked by PML-N members.
[8]
Finally, the Board considered whether state
protection was available in Pakistan. Here, the Board acknowledged that Mr. Butt had provided
documentary proof, in the form of police reports, corroborating his allegation
of being attacked. However, the evidence did not identify the assailants as
members of the PML-N. In addition, the documents described the police response
to the attacks, indicating that state protection was available.
[9]
The Board concluded that Mr. Butt’s claim was
not supported by credible or trustworthy evidence. Further, Mr. Butt had not
shown that state protection was unavailable to him in Pakistan. On those grounds, it dismissed his application.
III.
Was the Board’s Conclusion Adequately
Explained?
[10]
Mr. Butt argues that the Board’s conclusion that
his claim was unsupported by reliable evidence was unreasonable. In particular,
he claims that the Board appeared to dismiss his claim almost entirely on the
basis that the letter from Mr. Hassan did not support it. In his view, the
Board failed to go on to consider whether the remainder of his evidence proved that
his fear of persecution was well-founded.
[11]
In my view, if one reads it as a whole, the
Board’s decision was supported by adequate reasons. Mr. Butt’s claim of
persecution was contradicted in three separate ways. First, in what should have
been a valuable piece of corroborating evidence, Mr. Hassan’s letter, Mr.
Butt’s account of events was unsupported. Second, the documentary evidence did
not correspond with Mr. Butt’s allegation that PML-N supporters attacked PML-Q
followers. Third, the documentary evidence before the Board showed that state
authorities had intervened to protect PML-Q supporters when necessary.Overall,
the evidence did not show that there was a reasonable chance that Mr. Butt
would be persecuted on political grounds if he returned to Pakistan. The Board addressed each of these
areas and provided reasons for finding Mr. Butt’s claim to be unsupported by
the evidence. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that its reasons were inadequate.
IV. Conclusion and Disposition
[12]
I find that the Board’s conclusion that Mr.
Butt’s claim of political persecution was unsupported by trustworthy evidence
was adequately explained. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for
judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me
to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content