Date:
20130521
Docket:
IMM-6756-12
Citation:
2013 FC 521
Vancouver, British Columbia,
May 21, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
|
|
MD. RAFIQUL ISLAM, NASIR ISLAM,
FARHAN SYED AND LABONITA ISLAM
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
MD.
Rafiqul Islam (the Applicant), his spouse Nasira Islam, and their minor
children Farhan Sayed and Lobonita Islam (collectively, the Applicants) seek judicial
review (the Application) pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (the Act) of a decision of the
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board)
dated June 18, 2012, wherein the Board determined that the Applicants are
neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection (the Decision).
[2]
For
the following reasons, the Application will be dismissed.
[3]
During
the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Applicant was actively involved in the
student wing of the BNP Party in Bangladesh. In 1994, after graduation, he
became a policeman and there is no evidence that he was politically active
after that date.
[4]
After
the BNP came to power in 2001, the Applicant was assigned duties which included
suppressing protests against the BNP government by members of the Awami League
(the League). However, power shifted and the League formed the government
following elections in December 2008. Thereafter, men the Applicant describes
as “League terrorists” undertook reprisals against those who had opposed the
League, including police who had suppressed the earlier protests.
[5]
In
the course of these reprisals, the Applicant’s home in Khulna was ransacked and
his wife was threatened in early January 2009 (the Attack). In consequence she
moved, with her two young children, to live with her mother in the same city.
[6]
The
Applicant was in Kosovo on a UN peacekeeping mission when the Attack occurred.
He returned to Bangladesh shortly thereafter and, for six months, resumed
his duties as a policeman. He lived in Dakar with his brother and experienced
no problems. Then, in August 2009, he left for the Sudan to assist with UN
peacekeeping in Darfur. That assignment ended in 2010.
[7]
The
Applicants arrived in Canada on August 17, 2010 and claimed refugee status
three days later.
[8]
The
principal issue in this case is whether it was reasonable for the Board to
conclude that the Applicant’s multiple reavailments to Bangladesh undermined the credibility of his alleged subjective fear.
[9]
The
Board identified the reavailments as an issue in the screening form sent to the
Applicant and his counsel before the hearing. However, only during the hearing
did the Board learn that the Applicant’s amended Personal Information Form (PIF) narrative described only two incidents of reavailment to Bangladesh when, in fact, there had been four. They were:
March
2010: For five days – he returned from the Sudan to apply for a visa to
visit Malaysia (not in his PIF).
March
2010: For several hours at the airport travelling back from Malaysia to the Sudan (not in his PIF).
May
17-25: To apply for visas for his family for Canada – The visas were
issued on May 23.
August
3-17: To arrange his family’s travel to Canada.
[10]
The
Board concluded that the Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation
for his failure to disclose the first two reavailments in his PIF and in his
initial testimony at the hearing. He said variously that: (i) he thought
they were mentioned in the PIF; (ii) he misunderstood the Board’s question when
it sought an explanation (although he acknowledged that he had no problems with
the interpretation he was provided); and (iii) that he was mentally ill when he
returned to Bangladesh (however, there was no supporting medical evidence and
this information was not in his PIF).
[11]
The
Applicant also failed to satisfactorily explain the last two reavailments.
There was no evidence showing that his wife could not have applied for the
visas or organized the family for a short flight to meet up with her husband
outside Bangladesh.
[12]
The
Applicant did say that his wife was not capable of travelling and that she had
never left Bangladesh. However, this statement was untrue – she travelled with
him to Malaysia in March 2010. The Board therefore concluded that the
Applicant’s wife, who has a university education, could have organized the
visas and tickets for the trip to Canada and there was no evidence of cultural
norms or other issues which might have stood in her way.
[13]
For
these reasons, in my view, the Decision was reasonable.
[14]
No
question was posed for certification pursuant to section 74(d) of the Act.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that upon reviewing the material filed and
hearing the submissions of counsel in Toronto on Tuesday, April 30, 2013, the
Application is hereby dismissed.
“Sandra J. Simpson”
Email this Content