Date: 20040813
Docket: IMM-1283-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1127
Ottawa, Ontario, this 13th day of August, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD SHERAZ, MASOODA TANVIR, HUMZA SHERAZ
(by his litigation guardian, MASOODA TANVIR), UMMARA SHERAZ
(by her litigation guardian, MASOODA TANVIR) AND ADIL SHERAZ
(by his litigation guardian, MASOODA TANVIR)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Mohammad Sheraz, his wife, Ms. Masooda Tanvir, and their three children, Ummara, Adil and Humza, are citizens of Pakistan. They presented claims for refugee protection in Canada based on separate allegations put forward by Mr. Sheraz and Ms. Tanvir. Mr. Sheraz said that he was being pursued by influential persons in Pakistan who had killed his father. Ms. Tanvir said that she had been threatened by members of the Pakistan Muslim League. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed the claims of all of the applicants. The Board found Mr. Sheraz and Ms. Tanvir not to be credible.
[2] The Board's credibility finding is not in issue here. Rather, the applicants argue that the Board made procedural errors that justify my ordering a new hearing. However, I cannot find any error on the Board's part and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
1. Did the Board err when it included Humza Sheraz in its record of decision?
2. Did the Board fail to address the claims of Ummara and Adil Sheraz, or fail to explain adequately why their claims were dismissed?
II. Analysis
1. Did the Board err when it included Humza Sheraz in its record of decision?
[3] It came to light before the Board that Humza Sheraz, age 3 at the time, was a citizen both of Pakistan and the United States. The Board informed the family that Humza would have to make a claim for refugee protection against the United States. The family then withdrew Humza's claim. However, in its notice of decision, the Board included Humza's name, date of birth and file number above its determination that the claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
[4] The applicants argue that the Board made a procedural error when it included Humza in its record of decision. They suggest that this may cause him difficulties later in life if, for example, he ever makes another claim.
[5] In my view, the Board did not err. It was seized with the refugee claims of all five family members. It dealt with all of them. It set out in its reasons why Humza's claim was not properly framed. Its collective determination that the claims failed was not inaccurate. The fact that the family withdrew Humza's application during the hearing does not mean that the Board made an error by including him in its decision. Under the circumstances, the withdrawal amounted to a concession that there was no basis for a claim on Humza's part. Counsel for the family told the Board at the outset of the hearing that it "will not have to consider that application". Further, the applicants' suggestion that the Board's treatment of his claim may prejudice Humza in the future is speculative.
2. Did the Board fail to address the claims of Ummara and Adil Sheraz, or fail to explain adequately why their claims were dismissed?
[6] The applicants argue that the Board failed to address the claims of Ummara and Adil. Certainly, the Board mentioned their claims in its introduction and in its formal determination of the claims. In its conclusion, the Board simply stated that none of the applicants were Convention refugees or in need of protection. At the hearing, the Board noted that "a claim of persecution is made for each person appearing before the Board". However, in its analysis of the facts and its assessment of the merits of the claims, it made no mention of the children.
[7] In my view, on the facts of this case, the Board treated Ummara and Adil fairly. There were simply no independent facts supporting the claims of the minor children. In their Personal Information Forms, Ummara and Adil simply cross-referenced their parents' narratives. The children did not testify. Mr. Sheraz only mentioned his children briefly in his testimony. He said that he would have a problem if he went back to Pakistan and that his "children will also face the problem". He also said that he left Pakistan to protect his life and his children's lives.
[8] In my view, with this scant evidence relating to the children and the clear indication from the applicants themselves that the children's claims were dependent entirely on their parents', the Board treated the children fairly. It also gave an adequate explanation why the claims failed when it concluded that the parents' testimony was not credible. In circumstances where the children's claims are completely dependent on the parents', the Board has met its duty toward the children if it makes clear that it is aware of their separate claims, analyzes the parents' claims thoroughly and includes a specific determination in respect of each of the claimants: Nikolov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2003 FCT 231, [2003] F.C.J. No. 300 (T.D.) (QL). That is what the Board did here.
[9] 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"
F.C.J.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1283-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMAD SHERAZ, ET AL. v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: August 10, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: August 13, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Elizabeth Wozniak FOR THE APPLICANTS
Melissa Cameron FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
CRAGG, WOZNIAK
Halifax, Nova Scotia FOR THE APPLICANTS
MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Halifax, Nova Scotia FOR THE RESPONDENT