Date: 20010322
Docket: IMM-2259-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 221
BETWEEN:
KHURSHID GHANI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] After a careful review of the transcript of the refugee hearing and the documentary evidence relied upon by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, I am satisfied the applicant has failed to establish any reviewable error in the decision that he is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The tribunal concluded that the applicant's testimony was not trustworthy because, in its view, it ran counter to common sense and was not consistent with the documentary evidence.
[3] It was open to the tribunal, in my opinion, to find that the alleged incidents of July 1 and July 5, 1998 were implausible. The tribunal did not accept that the applicant's profile as a member of the Pakistan People's Party would have attracted any special interest from opposing political formations. Similarly, the tribunal refused to conclude that the applicant would have been the only speaker from among several at the rally of July 5, 1998 who would have been targeted by their political opponents. The tribunal also preferred the documentary evidence that there were no reports of members of the Pakistan People's Party being subjected to violence or threats by the Pakistan Muslim League in the applicant's district of Swat, contrary to the position he had taken.
[4] Against this background, I find no reviewable error in the tribunal's two findings that: (a) the shooting on July 1, 1998 of several bullets in the door alleged to come from the applicant's residence; and (b) the statement by those who purportedly set fire to the applicant's store on July 5, 1998 that they would kill the applicant - were implausible. The applicant was questioned on the principal facts alleged concerning these incidents. In the words of Justice Décary in Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at paragraph 4, "the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable" as to warrant this Court's intervention.
[5] Similarly, the tribunal's analysis with respect to an internal flight alternative is clear, specific to the applicant and not inconsistent with the documentary evidence. The applicant's counsel before the tribunal acknowledged in post-hearing submissions that he was unable to identify documentary evidence inconsistent with that relied upon by the tribunal.
[6] Accordingly, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question.
"Allan Lutfy"
A.C.J.
Ottawa, Ontario
March 22, 2001