Date: 20040630
Docket: IMM-5072-03
Citation: 2004 FC 948
Ottawa, Ontario, this 30th day of June, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SNIDER
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD ASIF
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, came to Canada in June 2001 and claimed to be a Convention refugee. He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political affiliation and as an active member of the Pakistan People's Party (_PPP_). After hearing his claim, a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the _Board_) determined, in a decision dated June 11, 2003, that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
[2] The key findings of the Board are as follows:
· although the Board accepted the Applicant's identity, the Applicant had not proven that he was in Pakistan during the relevant dates since there are no documents in the file that show when he was in the country and when he left.
· The Board made an adverse finding with regards to the Applicant's credibility based on an inconsistency in his testimony relating to his participation in the PPP.
· The Board found that the Applicant did not present clear and convincing evidence about his role in the PPP and therefore could not determine whether he would face a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to Pakistan.
[3] The applicant seeks judicial review of that decision.
Issues
[4] This Application raises the following issues:
1. Did the Board err by ignoring relevant evidence?
2. Did the Board err by deciding that the Applicant's testimony was not credible?
3. Did the Board make a perverse finding of implausibility with regards to the Applicant's allegation that the authorities were pursuing him?
Issue #1: Did the Board err by ignoring relevant evidence?
[5] The Applicant submits that the Board committed a reviewable error by ignoring the following evidence in its decision:
· the fact that Immigration Canada had the Applicant's National Identity Card (_NIC_);
· the letter from the Applicant's lawyer, various letters from members of his party and his party membership cards; and
· the physical injuries suffered by the Applicant and a corroborating letter from a physician in Pakistan.
[6] In the Applicant's submission, all of this evidence corroborates the Applicant's claim to have been in Pakistan on the dates of the incidents and events that he describes in his personal information form (_PIF_). In his PIF, the Applicant describes two main incidents that occurred in 1997 and in 2001 and claims to have been active with the PPP from 1994.
[7] I will deal with each of the points raised by the Applicant, as well as the point raised by the Board about the Applicant's missing passport.
(a) National Identity Card
[8] The Board stated that it _never saw a copy of the seized NIC, but only a translation of the NIC_. The Applicant points to the certified tribunal record to show that, in fact, the Board did have a copy of the NIC. This document, in the Applicant's view, clearly establishes that he was in Pakistan as of April 24, 2001 which date appears on the NIC. However, I note that the Certified Tribunal Record contains a copy of only the front of the card and not the reverse and that the date, which is barely legible, could be _2001" or _2000". The translation of the document contained in the record indicates, in two places, a date of 2000. Thus, based on the incomplete NIC, the illegible date on the copy and the different date on the translation, it was open to the Board to decline to use this documentation as evidence that the Applicant was in Pakistan at the material times.
(b) Other Corroborating Evidence
[9] Secondly, the Applicant asserts that the Board did not consider the evidence that corroborated the Applicant's presence in Pakistan at the material time. However, the Board did comment on the letter from the Applicant's lawyer, the various letters from members of his party and his party I.D. cards. On page 4 of its decision, the Board stated that it based its decision relating to the Applicant's identity on these documents. Thus, I find that the Board did consider the evidence within these documents.
[10] The Board did not specifically refer to these documents in concluding that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that he was in Pakistan at the material times. However, a review of this documentation demonstrates that it does not establish that the Applicant was in Pakistan at the relevant times.
(c) Medical Evidence of Injuries
[11] The Applicant claims that his back was injured during a demonstration in March 2001 and that he sought medical help for this injury. A letter from a physician in Pakistan, dated March 24, 2001 purports to corroborate this injury. The Applicant is correct in stating that the Board does not deal with the Applicant's injuries or the doctor's letter. However, I do not find this omission to be material.
[12] The only evidence relating directly to these injuries is the Applicant's own testimony, which the Board deemed was not credible. There is documentation from a medical doctor in Pakistan that indicates that the Applicant had suffered trauma to his spine. However, it does not state the cause of this trauma, when he was examined by the doctor or when he might have sustained the injuries. Thus, there is no evidence that links the Applicant's injuries to an alleged police beating. Although, in the interests of being thorough, the Board ought to have referred to the injuries, its failure to do so is not fatal to the decision. I also note that the record contains another copy of an identical letter dated March 3, 1998. This certainly could raise a concern in the mind of the Board about the veracity of the later letter.
(d) Passport
[13] Finally, I note the Board's concern with the missing passport. In its decision, the Board stated that _If . . . the claimant does have a passport copy, the panel concludes that the claimant withheld it wilfully, as there is information in it that he would not want the panel to view._ The passport in question expired in 1999 but could, nonetheless, have provided corroboration of his claim to be in Pakistan in 1997 when the first alleged incident took place.
[14] Contrary to the view of the Applicant, the Board was entitled to draw a negative inference from the failure of the Applicant to put the passport forward. However, even if the Board overstated the effect of its absence, the absent passport was not the only basis upon which the Board reached its conclusion. There was evidence on record to support the Board's conclusion, including doubt about the date of the NIC and the weakness of the corroborating evidence.
[15] In conclusion on this issue, I am satisfied that the Board did not ignore relevant evidence or otherwise err in the conclusions that it drew from that evidence.
Issue #2: Did the Board err by deciding that the Applicant's testimony was not credible?
[16] The Applicant submits that the Board's adverse finding of credibility was perverse and capricious. The Applicant suggests that the Board used the absence of his NIC and passport to impeach his credibility when it had accepted these same documents regarding the Applicant's identity. Moreover, the Applicant suggests that the Board's treatment of the evidence was capriciously _microscopic_.
[17] I do not agree with the Applicant's submissions. Firstly, the Board did not base its negative finding of credibility on the absence of the Applicant's NIC and passport. It was founded on inconsistency relating to the Applicant's role within the PPP. Moreover, the Board found that the Applicant exhibited a _lack of clarity regarding whom the government would target in the PPP, and seemed to be saying that workers and leaders would be at risk_.
[18] Findings of credibility and implausibility lie particularly within the jurisdiction of the Board (Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and the Board's expertise merits a high degree of deference. For these reasons, only a patently unreasonable decision by the Board with respect to an Applicant's credibility will invite the Court's intervention.
[19] In this case, the Board's reasons are stated clearly and its conclusions are founded on the facts contained in the record. There is no reason for this Court to intervene.
Issue #3: Did the Board make a perverse finding of implausibility with regards to the Applicant's allegation that the authorities were pursuing him?
[20] The Applicant submits that the Board's finding that it is implausible that the Pakistani authorities would want to pursue him because his role in the PPP was not that of a leader is a reviewable error.
[21] In this instance, the Board concluded that it was implausible that the authorities in Pakistan would systematically be attempting to eliminate all people who worked within the PPP. This conclusion was based not only on the lack of documentary evidence on the matter, but also on the fact that the PPP is a major party in Pakistan. It was open to the Board to make this finding of fact, and it is not reviewable unless it is patently unreasonable (Aguebor, supra, and Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982).
Conclusion
[22] The Applicant in this case has not been able to demonstrate that any of the Board's findings could not have reasonably been drawn from the evidence before it.
[23] I do not find that the Board's decision in this case was patently unreasonable and, accordingly, the application will be dismissed.
[24] Neither party proposed a question for certification. None will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed; and
2. No question of general importance is certified.
_Judith A. Snider_
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5072-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MUHAMMAD ASIF v. THE M.C. & I.
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 29, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
DATED: June 30, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Amina Sherazee FOR APPLICANT
Ms. A. Leena Jaakkimainen FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Galati, Rodrigues, Azevedo & Associates FOR APPLICANT
Toronto, Ontario
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada