Date: 20011114
Docket: IMM-6626-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1232
Between:
NURMEMET HAJMEMET
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] The is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated December 5, 2000, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of China but also a temporary resident of Turkey.
[3] The Convention Refugee Determination Division determined that since the applicant was not credible, he had failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, for the following reasons:
- Several versions of the applicant's name appeared on the documents filed at the hearing.
- The applicant did not produce evidence with respect to the two rejections of his application for permanent residence by the Turkish authorities.
- The applicant claimed to be regarded as a terrorist by the Turkish authorities but he had never been arrested and no other action had been taken against him. Furthermore, he submitted that political activities in Turkey are not considered illegal.
- The applicant's permit had been renewed up to May 2001, but his applications for citizenship were rejected.
- The documentary evidence demonstrated that the Uighurs had successfully organized demonstrations in Turkey and that 1,000 Uighurs were given their citizenship applications on June 5, 1998. The applicant did not provide any evidence or explanation to refute these affirmations.
- The applicant travelled twice to Saudi Arabia: first on December 24, 1998, and again in March 1999. The Convention Refugee Determination Division believed that the fear of persecution was unfounded because the applicant returned to Turkey voluntarily after each trip.
- In his Personal Information Form ("PIF"), the applicant stated that the main purpose for his visits to Saudi Arabia was to perform religious rituals. He contradicted himself in his testimony by saying that he had travelled to Saudi Arabia to promote the "Uighur cause." Moreover, he admitted that those activities are not allowed in Saudi Arabia and that participants are punished harshly.
- The applicant claimed that after the exhibition of photographs that were negative to China, the police did not want to investigate his complaint. This important piece of information was not included in his PIF, which was nevertheless very detailed. He also contradicted his previous testimony when he said that those activities were not illegal.
- The Convention Refugee Determination Division did not believe that the applicant would be refouled to China if he were to return to Turkey since he holds a valid permit and he is not sought by the Turkish authorities.
[4] More particularly, with respect to the agreement between Turkey and China, on which the panel, according to the applicant, did not place the proper weight, I note that the text of that agreement has never been produced and that there was only a brief newspaper article referring to it. On that point, the Convention Refugee Determination Division stated:
The panel does not believe the claimant when he says that he would be sent back to China if he is to return to Turkey. He has a valid residence permit in Turkey up to May 24, 2001. He is not sought by the Turkish authorities by his own admission. The panel does not believe, therefore, that he would have problems if sent back to Turkey just because China and Turkey signed an agreement of mutual interest on various matters in February 2000. He could not provide any pertinent details of this agreement stating that he would be sent back to China due to that. He produced no newspaper article asserting that Uighurs can no longer demonstrate in Turkey since February 2000 agreement between Turkey and China. The claimant failed in proving that the Uighurs were sent back to China from Turkey. The evidence [footnote omitted] shows contrary to that. He had the opportunity to leave Turkey since 1993 which he never availed. Few times did he leave Turkey, he returned back. His Turkish residency permits have been renewed regularly, an indication that he has no problems at this place of his habitual residency. The panel, therefore, does not believe in his claim to fear. [sic]
[5] The issue in this case is therefore essentially a matter of assessing facts and credibility. In that respect, it is settled law that it is not for this Court to substitute itself for the administrative tribunal when, as in this case, the applicant fails to prove that the decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact, made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before the tribunal (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7).
[6] I have reviewed the evidence and the inferences drawn by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, a specialized tribunal, particularly in the following passage of its decision, appear to me to be completely reasonable:
On the second day of the hearing, the claimant was confronted with a documentary evidence [footnote omitted] which sets out reasons for denying or renewing the residency permits in Turkey. He was read sections 7 and 9 in particular. He was asked to explain his testimony that he could not stay in Turkey because of his activities there related to the East Turkestan. He explained that the next renewal will be very bad because of the recent agreement between China and Turkey. He went on to say that the last time when he went to renew the permit, they refused it first. Then his wife and children begged the authorities to get it. He, therefore, thinks that he would not get the next renewal after May 2001 as China and Turkey would have more agreements. The claimant was read the first paragraph of another document [footnote omitted] stating that Turkey had given 1,000 Uighurs a permanent residence status on June 5, 1998. Also, it is known that in Turkey, Uighurs have carried out demonstrations and organizing activities in Turkey. He stated that it was not true that 1,000 Uighurs were given permanent status there. The panel does not believe in his denial of this document. He was living at the time in Turkey. Moreover, as he said, he was very involved in Uighurs' activities and East Turkestan network there. He offered no explanation or documentary evidence to support his testimony. The claimant is not credible and, therefore, cannot believe in his alleged fear. [sic]
[7] Furthermore, I am of the opinion, in the circumstances, that the panel's perception that the applicant was not credible in fact amounts to a finding that there was no credible evidence that could justify his claim for refugee status (see Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at pages 316 and 317 and Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at page 244).
[8] The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 14, 2001
Certified True Translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
Date: 20011114
Docket: IMM-6626-00
Ottawa, Ontario, the 14th day of November 2001
Present: The Honourable Pinard J.
Between:
NURMEMET HAJMEMET
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated December 5, 2000, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified True Translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-6626-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: NURMEMET HAJMEMET v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: 17-0CT-2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: 14-NOV-2001
APPEARANCES:
CLAUDE WHALEN FOR THE APPLICANT
CAROLINE DOYON FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
CLAUDE WHALEN
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT