Docket: IMM-2117-16
Citation:
2017 FC 67
Toronto, Ontario, January 19, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MISHAEL EMMA
DAVID
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIP
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The Applicant, a female citizen of Pakistan,
arrived in Canada on January 7, 2016; and, made an unsuccessful refugee
claim, based on persecution as a Christian young woman whose alleged
well-connected extremist suitor wanted her to convert to Islam.
[2]
The family of the Applicant have been Christians
of long-standing for generations, both practicing and studying the Christian
faith as part of their upbringing and spiritual heritage.
[3]
Her college, although Christian named, Forman
Christian College, is composed of a majority Moslem student body and faculty.
The Applicant was pressured when asked to join the Islamic society which she
declined to do.
[4]
The Applicant submits that the Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada [IRBC], Refugee Protection Division, erred in having
made adverse credibility findings in her regard. Precluded from appealing to
the Refugee Appeal Division, as she had arrived in Canada via United States,
she has, thus, presented her judicial review to the Court, for the Court to
consider whether a new hearing is warranted.
[5]
A new hearing would be warranted, if the Board
erred in its assessment of the credibility findings in respect of the
Applicant. This Court finds that the Board did, indeed err in its credibility
findings, as it failed to conduct a proper analysis of the country condition
documentary evidence as linked to the Applicant’s narrative.
[6]
It is duly noted that, as related by the
Applicant without contradiction, the suitor of the Applicant stated that “he will start a blasphemy case against me and then they will
come to me instead and arrest me… He said that I must be prepared that day to
convert to Islam so that he and I can have a traditional “Nikkah” or wedding
ceremony”.
[7]
The contradictions that the Board brought
forward are peripheral in their overall orientation; and, do not take into
account, both the Applicant’s subjective (personal) evidence and the objective
country condition evidence. As submitted in evidence, the International Crisis
Group Report for 2015, entitled “Women, Violence and
Conflict in Pakistan”, clearly indicates the potential persecution in
cases such as that of the Applicant, if, in fact, the person is non-Moslem, or
belongs to a minority Moslem entity: “The UNHCR Guide
to Assessing Religious Minorities in Pakistan draws a picture of peril in
respect of Christian women” (UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNACR),
UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs
of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan, 14 May 2012, HCR/EG/PAK/12/02
at Exhibit D of the Applicant’s Affidavit).
[8]
In addition, the evidence of violence against
women is extensive everywhere in the country. Reference is made to the 2015
Amnesty International Report on Pakistan. Therefore, this evidence clearly sets
aside, in respect of the evidentiary specifics of this case, the internal
flight alternative to Karachi, which was suggested by the Board Panel in its
decision to the Applicant. The case demonstrates the Applicant, as a single
woman in her society, cannot just pick up and leave to another city by herself
without grave danger to her person.
[9]
Assertion by a government and even
legislation, if not backed up with tangible enforcement, is but a
wishful-thinking illusion (Meza Varela v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1364 and Bledy v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 210).
[10]
It is of significance that the Board did not
even address a core piece of evidence on file, a letter from the Pasteur, in
Pakistan, whose church the family of the Applicant attends, in which he clearly
writes that the suitor came to the house of the Applicant, accompanied by
others and demanded that the Applicant convert to Islam. He adds that the
police is not a viable option in which Christians place confidence in such
matters for their security.
[11]
The U.K. Report, as per Country Information
and Guidance: Pakistan, Religious Freedom, Exhibit D, speaking of the IRBC,
itself, as to the Board’s own consultations, in
January 2013, clearly reports that “police officers are
reported to have committed the following crimes against Christians: gang rape,
murder, fabricating cases or falsifying charges, beatings and torture”.
[12]
For all of the above reasons, the decision
cannot be allowed to stand. The file is to be returned to the Board for
consideration anew by a differently constituted panel.
Email this Content