Docket: IMM-695-15
Citation:
2015 FC 1037
Ottawa, Ontario, September 2, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
AHMED, ZAKA UD
DIN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
The Federal Court of Appeal has held that for an
error of law determination to suffice in setting aside an administrative
decision, the error must be determinative of the outcome in respect of the
decision. No deference is due to the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] by the
Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] except in matters of credibility, where the RPD
will have had the opportunity of a first instance tribunal to hear the
testimony, to question thereon and to demonstrate a review of the evidence.
Therefore, the RAD, if it, itself demonstrates a thorough evaluation of the
RPD’s credibility findings, then the RAD’s analysis will be considered as that
of an independent decision-maker, as clearly stated by the Federal Court of
Appeal in Carter v Canada (Minister of Social Development), 2006
FCA 172 at para 7 [Carter].
II.
Introduction
[2]
The Applicant challenges a decision dated
January 28, 2015, of the RAD pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] dismissing the Applicant’s
appeal and confirming the determination by the RPD that the Applicant is
neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
III.
Background
[3]
The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan born on
September 24, 1984. The Applicant alleges the following facts.
[4]
In June 2013, the Applicant reported to the
police that a car he was repairing at his shop had conflicting serial numbers
and was likely stolen. After the “owners” took
the vehicle away, they were stopped at a checkpoint by the police. The police
found a suicide jacket and a hand grenade in the car.
[5]
The “owners” of
the car managed to escape but the Applicant was invited by the police to
identify the car.
[6]
Approximately one week later, the Applicant
received a threatening call from the Taliban accusing him of informing the
police about the car. The Applicant returned to the police and was told that
the Taliban had informants within the police.
[7]
Following the police’s advice, the Applicant
went into hiding in Gojra City for a few months.
[8]
Upon return in December 2013, as he was on his
way home from a restaurant, two motorcyclists approached the Applicant’s car
and opened fire on him. The Applicant sped up and escaped.
[9]
The Applicant reported the incident to the
police but no one was arrested.
[10]
The Applicant went into hiding in Lahore, at a
friend’s house. While in Lahore, the Applicant received a threatening call from
the Taliban even though he had changed his cellphone number.
[11]
The Applicant decided to leave Pakistan and with
the help of an agent, obtained a passport in May 2014 and traveled to Canada.
[12]
The Applicant’s claim was heard by the RPD on
September 16, 2014, and was dismissed on September 23, 2014. The RPD
found that the Applicant had not established on a balance of probabilities that
he was targeted by the Taliban.
[13]
An appeal was filed to the RAD on
October 21, 2014. The RAD dismissed the appeal on January 28, 2015.
IV.
Impugned Decision
[14]
In its reasons, following the Federal Court’s
decision in Huruglica v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2014 FC 799, the RAD first declares that its duty is to review all aspects of
the RPD’s decision and come to an independent assessment of the Applicant’s
refugee claim, deferring to the RPD only where the lower tribunal enjoys a
particular advantage in reaching a conclusion, such as credibility issues.
[15]
Second, the RAD assessed the admissibility of
the evidence provided by the Applicant in appeal, pursuant to subsection 110(4)
of the IRPA.
[16]
Applying the factors set out in Raza v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] FCJ 1632 [Raza],
the RAD found that although the evidence submitted by the Applicant meets the
statutory requirement provided in subsection 110(4) that became available to
the Applicant after the RPD made its determination, it cannot be admitted, as
it does fail to meet the credibility factor set out in Raza, above.
[17]
Third, the RAD considers the Applicant’s
submission that an oral hearing be held pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the
IRPA. The RAD found that in view of the previous denial of the admittance of
the evidence adduced by the Applicant, an oral hearing is not warranted,
following subsection 110(3) of the IRPA.
[18]
Fourth, the RAD identifies credibility as the
determinative issue on appeal and reviews the RPD’s determinations and findings
relating to the evidence and the Applicant’s testimony before the RPD.
[19]
After having considered the Applicant’s
submissions, the RAD concludes:
[54] The RAD has reviewed and assessed
the panel’s credibility findings concerning the December 2013 incident alleged
by the Appellant. The RAD finds it was open to the panel to consider the
documentary evidence submitted by the Appellant on its own terms. The RAD
agrees with the panel’s finding that the information in the newspapers was inconsistent
with the information in the FIR. The RAD finds it was open to the panel to draw
a negative inference in this regard. The RAD also concurs with the panel’s
finding regarding the FIR, whether original or copy, in the context of the
inconsistencies noted above which occurred in all three newspaper article[s]
submitted by the Appellant, and the information in country document evidence
that fraudulent documents are available in Pakistan.
…
[56] The RAD has reviewed the evidence
concerning the December 2013 incident and concurs with the panel’s finding that
the inconsistency between the Appellant’s testimony and narrative was material
to a central allegation in the claim, and not adequately explained by the
Appellant. The RAD finds it was open to the panel to draw a negative inference
and to find that the Appellant was not shot at by motorcyclists in December
2013.
(RAD’s Decision, Certified Tribunal Record,
at paras 54 and 56)
V.
Legislative Provisions
[20]
The following provisions are relevant to refugee
determination:
|
Convention refugee
|
Définition de « réfugié »
|
|
96. A Convention refugee is a person
who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political
opinion,
|
96. A
qualité de réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui,
craignant avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion,
de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions
politiques :
|
|
(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and
is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the
protection of each of those countries; or
|
a) soit
se trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait
de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays;
|
|
(b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the
country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of
that fear, unwilling to return to that country.
|
b) soit,
si elle n’a pas de nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle
avait sa résidence habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut
y retourner.
|
|
Person in need of protection
|
Personne à protéger
|
|
97. (1) A person in need of protection
is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of
nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country
of former habitual residence, would subject them personally
|
97. (1)
A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et
serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la
nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa
résidence habituelle, exposée :
|
|
(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist,
of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture;
or
|
a) soit
au risque, s’il y a des motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la
torture au sens de l’article premier de la Convention contre la torture;
|
|
(b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and
unusual treatment or punishment if
|
b) soit
à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et
inusités dans le cas suivant :
|
|
(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling
to avail themself of the protection of that country,
|
(i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la
protection de ce pays,
|
|
(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of
that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that
country,
|
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que
d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont
généralement pas,
|
|
(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful
sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards,
and
|
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions
légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et
inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
|
|
(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country
to provide adequate health or medical care.
|
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l’incapacité
du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
|
|
(2) A person in Canada who is a member of a class of persons
prescribed by the regulations as being in need of protection is also a person
in need of protection.
|
(2) A également qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se
trouve au Canada et fait partie d’une catégorie de personnes auxquelles est reconnu
par règlement le besoin de protection.
|
[21]
The following legislative provisions are
relevant in assessing the RAD’s appeal:
|
Appeal
|
Appel
|
|
110. (1) Subject to subsections (1.1)
and (2), a person or the Minister may appeal, in accordance with the rules of
the Board, on a question of law, of fact or of mixed law and fact, to the
Refugee Appeal Division against a decision of the Refugee Protection Division
to allow or reject the person’s claim for refugee protection.
|
110.
(1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (1.1) et (2), la personne en cause et le
ministre peuvent, conformément aux règles de la Commission, porter en appel —
relativement à une question de droit, de fait ou mixte — auprès de la Section
d’appel des réfugiés la décision de la Section de la protection des réfugiés
accordant ou rejetant la demande d’asile.
|
|
Procedure
|
Fonctionnement
|
|
(3) Subject to subsections (3.1), (4) and (6), the Refugee Appeal
Division must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the
proceedings of the Refugee Protection Division, and may accept documentary
evidence and written submissions from the Minister and the person who is the
subject of the appeal and, in the case of a matter that is conducted before a
panel of three members, written submissions from a representative or agent of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and any other person
described in the rules of the Board.
|
(3) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3.1), (4) et (6), la section
procède sans tenir d’audience en se fondant sur le dossier de la Section de
la protection des réfugiés, mais peut recevoir des éléments de preuve
documentaire et des observations écrites du ministre et de la personne en
cause ainsi que, s’agissant d’une affaire tenue devant un tribunal constitué
de trois commissaires, des observations écrites du représentant ou mandataire
du Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés et de toute autre
personne visée par les règles de la Commission.
|
|
Evidence that may be presented
|
Éléments de preuve admissibles
|
|
(4) On appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal may
present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that
was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have
been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the
rejection.
|
(4) Dans le cadre de l’appel, la personne en cause ne peut
présenter que des éléments de preuve survenus depuis le rejet de sa demande
ou qui n’étaient alors pas normalement accessibles ou, s’ils l’étaient,
qu’elle n’aurait pas normalement présentés, dans les circonstances, au moment
du rejet.
|
|
Hearing
|
Audience
|
|
(6) The Refugee Appeal Division may hold a hearing if, in its
opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3)
|
(6) La section peut tenir une audience si elle estime qu’il existe
des éléments de preuve documentaire visés au paragraphe (3) qui, à la fois :
|
|
(a) that raises a serious issue with respect to the
credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal;
|
a)
soulèvent une question importante en ce qui concerne la crédibilité de la
personne en cause;
|
|
(b) that is central to the decision with respect to the
refugee protection claim; and
|
b) sont
essentiels pour la prise de la décision relative à la demande d’asile;
|
|
(c) that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting
the refugee protection claim.
|
c) à
supposer qu’ils soient admis, justifieraient que la demande d’asile soit
accordée ou refusée, selon le cas.
|
|
Decision
|
Décision
|
|
111. (1) After considering the appeal,
the Refugee Appeal Division shall make one of the following decisions:
(a) confirm the determination of the Refugee Protection
Division;
(b) set aside the determination and substitute a
determination that, in its opinion, should have been made; or
(c) refer the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for
re-determination, giving the directions to the Refugee Protection Division
that it considers appropriate
|
111.
(1) La Section d’appel des réfugiés confirme la décision attaquée, casse la
décision et y substitue la décision qui aurait dû être rendue ou renvoie,
conformément à ses instructions, l’affaire à la Section de la protection des
réfugiés.
|
VI.
Issues
[22]
The application for judicial review raises the
following issues:
a)
Did the RAD err in dismissing the evidence
provided by the Applicant on appeal? In particular, did the RAD err in applying
subsection 110(4) of the IRPA?
b)
Is the RAD’s decision dismissing the appeal
reasonable?
VII.
Analysis
[23]
The Court is in agreement with the reasonableness
of the RAD’s decision. Credibility in respect of the subject-matter was
seriously compromised by the Applicant in regard to the evidence on record. The
body of the reasons is in approximately twenty-five paragraphs in which the RAD
clearly analyzed the Applicant’s entire evidence before the RPD and considered
each of the RPD’s considerations in respect of credibility.
[24]
The RAD in a hearing does not hear a matter de
novo. It cannot hear the same evidence again; all it can do is to analyze
that which was done by the RPD. The RPD, as a trier of fact, had the opportunity
to hear the Applicant and witnesses; and is best placed to evaluate evidence (see:
Canada (Attorney General) v Hunter, 2013 FCA 12).
[25]
The RAD did conduct an independent analysis. It
evaluated the credibility findings thoroughly. This is demonstrated by its
reasons and its independent analysis (see: Carter, above).
VIII.
Conclusion
[26]
For all the above reasons, the application for
judicial review is rejected.
Email this Content