Date: 20041001
Docket: IMM-8693-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1352
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, OCTOBER 1, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARTINEAU
BETWEEN:
FAZAL HUSSAIN
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the panel), dated September 24, 2003, that the applicant is not a "Convention Refugee" or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act).
[2] The applicant, Fazal Hussain, is a citizen of Pakistan alleging that he is a member of the "Pakistan People's Party" (PPP). He alleges that he fears persecution in his country based on his political beliefs. In its decision, the panel assigned no credibility to the applicant's story and the following reasons were given:
(a) The contradiction between the applicant's testimony and the documentary evidence on the electoral system of the local elections.
The applicant stated that the candidates were each affiliated with a party. Yet the elections were held without party affiliations. This change was nevertheless one of the major aspects of the political reform. This significant contradiction led the panel to doubt the political involvement and the importance of the political role that the applicant claimed to play. On that point, I am satisfied that the panel repeatedly invited the applicant, in several ways, to correct and clarify the inaccurate or confused answers that he had given.
(b) The applicant's failure to indicate in his Personal Information Form whether he had worked at the referendum of April 30, 2002.
This was one of the most powerful aspects of Pakistani politics since its goal was to extend the military control's over the country for five years. This omission led the panel to highly doubt the importance of the role assumed by the applicant within the political party in question. In my view, the panel could in this case reasonably rely on this omission to make a negative finding.
(c) In light of the documentary evidence, the implausibility of the applicant's allegation that as a member of the PPP, he had been harassed by the "Pakistan Muslim League" (PML) after the military came to power.
The panel noted that the applicant had never held a position with the party's executive and that his involvement in political activities was very limited, while the documentary evidence indicates that it is more specifically the leaders of the PPP who are targeted. In my opinion, this reasoning by the panel is not perverse or capricious.
(d) Aside from the fact that he was a member of the PPP and that the elections were coming up in October 2002, the lack of persuasive explanations from the applicant in support of his allegations regarding the fact that he had twice been arrested and detained and that there was an attempt to arrest him at his business on June 6, 2002, when he was not there.
Inter alia, the panel dismissed the applicant's claim that he feared the Chaudhry brothers, who were allegedly supported by the army and by the police. In my opinion, the panel was entitled to observe that, on that point, the documentary evidence did not support the applicant's submissions.
(e) No charges had been brought against the applicant.
This observation by the panel also follows from the evidence in the record and I can see no reason to intervene on that point.
[3] This Court has repeatedly stated, inter alia in R.K.L. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), _2003_ F.C.J. No. 162 at paragraph 7 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), that assessing credibility and weighing evidence are at the heart of the panel's jurisdiction and that this Court's intervention is only warranted when the applicant successfully proves that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (Kanyai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), _2002_ F.C.J. No. 1124 at paragraph 9 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); see also the grounds for revision set out in paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). In short, it must be established that the panel's finding was patently unreasonable.
[4] In this case, the applicant has not persuaded me that the panel's findings of fact were not based on relevant evidence or that the panel's general finding of a lack of credibility to the effect that the applicant "completely invented that story of persecution", was capricious, perverse or otherwise patently unreasonable. In my opinion, the contradictions or omissions identified by the panel addressed major elements of the applicant's claim, and I cannot substitute my judgment for that of the panel. On that point, I accept the arguments made on behalf of the respondent.
[5] From another standpoint, the panel's failure to mention in its decision the two letters later obtained from the PPP and from a lawyer to establish the applicant's association with the PPP, and the existence of a complaint brought by the local president of the PML against the applicant, in my opinion, is not determinative. Because of the very limited role that the applicant may have played with the PPP, the probative value of these two letters is very limited, in my view. Indeed, in the specific circumstances of this matter, in my opinion the panel was entitled to disregard this documentary evidence (Ahmad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No. 636 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); Hamid v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), _1995_ F.C.J. No. 1293 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); Songue v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), _1996_ F.C.J. No. 1020 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); and Syed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), _2000_ F.C.J. No. 597 (F.C.T.D.) (QL).
[6] I have considered the other grounds for review raised by the applicant in his written proceedings. Further, I have taken into consideration the oral arguments by the applicant's counsel. Nevertheless, when I consider the panel's decision as a whole, in light of the documentary evidence in the record, there is no basis for doubting the panel's findings.
[7] No question of general importance was raised by the parties and none will be certified by the Court.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be dismissed.
"Luc Martineau"
Judge
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-8693-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: FAZAL HUSSAIN v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARTINEAU
DATE OF REASONS OCTOBER 1, 2004
APPEARANCES:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE APPLICANT
MARIE-CLAUDE PAQUETTE FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE APPLICANT
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA