Date: 20040705
Docket: IMM-3621-03
Citation: 2004 FC 955
Ottawa, Ontario, July 5, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
SHAMIM AKHTAR, ABDUL REHMAN AHMAD,
ABDUL JABBAR AHMAD, MARRYUM MUBEEN
AND ABDULLLAH AHMAD TOOR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This in an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration Refugee Board (tribunal) dated April 11, 2003, wherein the Board determined that the Applicants were not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
ISSUE
[2] Did the Board err in determining that the principal Applicant was not credible?
[3] For the reasons below, I answer in the negative and will dismiss this application.
BACKGROUND
[4] The Applicant, Shamim Akhtar, is a citizen of Pakistan who fears persecution by reason of her political opinion and her membership in a particular social group, namely being a member of a politically active family in Pakistan. She is joined in her claim by her minor children.
[5] The alleged facts summarized by the tribunal are as follows. The Applicant comes from a long time politically active family with the Pakistan Muslim League (PML). She joined the PML (Nawaz Group) in 1996. Her father and her husband were also active in the PML. The Applicant participated in monthly meetings and worked on the campaigns of 1997 and 1998. She was particularly involved with the women's wing of the PML. After the military coup in October 1999, many party leaders were arrested. The Applicant and her husband continued to participate in party meetings and activities. The Applicant's husband was asked to join the PML (QA), a break away group of the PML aligned with the army. He refused.
[6] On July 7, 2000, the Applicant's husband was arrested by the authorities. He was tortured and detained for three days. In March of 2001, he was again arrested and tortured by the authorities. The Applicant, on her behalf, complained to the superintendent of police. Her husband was detained for two days and released after the payment of a bribe.
[7] On April 10, 2002, a meeting was held at the Applicant's home and her husband gave a speech advising members of the party to vote no in the upcoming referendum. That night, while her husband and her were at a family wedding, the police came to the family home. The Applicant's mother-in-law as well as her brother-in-law were present. The police were looking for the Applicant and her husband. Fearing for their safety, the Applicant and her husband moved to Lahore. They subsequently found out that charges were laid against them for their political activities. On May 21, 2002, a warrant of arrest was issued against them. The Applicant and her minor children left Pakistan on May 31, 2002, and claimed refugee status in Canada upon their arrival on June 1, 2002.
CONTESTED DECISION
[8] The tribunal found the Applicant was lacking credibility as she was unable to provide satisfactory details about the political party she claimed to be actively involved with. The Applicant gave very vague explanations about the manner in which she encouraged people to join the PML and about the revolutionary changes the PML was promoting. Asked by the tribunal what major event happened to the PML after the October 1999 military coup, the Applicant did not spontaneously answer that there was a split in the party, which lead to the creation of the PML (QA), a pro-military wing of the PML. The Applicant also stated that, in March 2001, she visited the superintendent of police whom she described as the SSP. In its reasons, the tribunal noted it was the deputy superintendant of police (DSP). Despite her alleged regular attendance at PML's monthly meetings, the Applicant was also unable to tell the tribunal that public meetings and political demonstrations were banned by the Musharaf government in March 2000.
[9] The tribunal also mentioned two factual incongruities in the Applicant's story. First, the tribunal noted that it was the Applicant's husband and not the Applicant who had been the target of the authorities, and thought it strange that she would have been a target only in April 2002 and not in the two previous incidents involving her husband. Second, the tribunal doubted that the authorities would continue to seek out the Applicant and her husband with respect to the April 2002 incident given the fact that there were individual parties who opposed the Musharaf April referendum as well as the October 2002 national elections.
[10] Finally, the tribunal disregarded the documentation that the Applicant produced to establish charges laid against her husband and her, as it had already found the Applicant was lacking credibility and as documentary evidence indicates that false court documents including arrest warrants and First Information Reports are easily obtainable in Pakistan.
ANALYSIS
[11] The standard of review in a case involving credibility findings, which is a factual issue, is the patently unreasonable standard. In other words, only if this Court finds that the tribunal rendered a patently unreasonable decision will it intervene.
[12] The Applicant's main argument focusses on the interpretation problems that occurred during the hearing. Her counsel argues that the first three negative credibility findings (the manner in which the Applicant encouraged people to join the PML, the meaning of "revolutionary changes" promoted by the PML and the Applicant's incapacity to spontaneously recollect a major event consisting in the splitting of the PML after the 1999 military coup) were drawn from answers given by the Applicant during the first part of the hearing, when there were interpretation problems. I looked at the transcriptions (pages 311-317, tribunal record) and concur with the Respondent that these three issues were revisited by the tribunal after a new interpreter was appointed. The tribunal gave the Applicant a chance to reexplain, the answers were still very vague and it is based on these answers that the tribunal draws negative credibility inferences.
[13] The only other comment the Applicant makes on these three negative credibility findings pertains to her inability, despite much probing by the tribunal, to show her knowledge of her political party and more specifically the fact that the PML split after the 1999 October coup. Upon being asked why she did not respond spontaneously, the Applicant replied she did not understand that is what the tribunal wanted her to say. The Applicant says that was a reasonable explanation as it was not necessarily obvious that the tribunal was looking for an explanation about an event (the PML split) that took place in August 2000. I agree with the Applicant that her initial response, the fact that PML leaders were arrested and tortured, answers the question "what happened after the coup of October 1999?" Having read the transcripts, I also take note of the fact that the Applicant did provide some information about the PML (QA) group once directly asked about this group. The tribunal already considered the explanation and did not accept it as credible. I cannot say that the tribunal drew patently unreasonable conclusions in light of the rather vague answers given by the Applicant.
[14] The tribunal questioned the applicant about another important political event that happened and considered that it should have been known by a person, who attended regular monthly meetings of the PML. The Applicant was unable to tell the tribunal that public meetings and political demonstrations were banned by the Musharaf government in March 2000. When asked why she did not know that fact, the Applicant simply answered that it "was not coming into my mind". I can only agree with the tribunal that someone who describes herself as an active political worker would not know about a fact so obvious which would have affected her directly.
[15] The Applicant did not raise any arguments to try to attack the two incongruities in the Applicant's story (her husband being the only one involved in incidents before April 2002 and the improbable continuation of the authorities' search for the Applicant and her husband). The Applicant did not attack either the tribunal's rejection of the documentation provided (warrant of arrest and First Information Report), simply stating that the acceptance or the rejection of written evidence depended on the credibility findings.
[16] The only other element raised by the Applicant with respect to the negative credibility findings drawn by the tribunal relates to the Applicant's referring to the "SSP" as opposed to the "DSP" when talking about her complaint to the police. I agree with the Applicant that it is not clear how the tribunal concluded in its reasons that "DSP" was the proper acronym in the context and drew a negative credibility inference from the Applicant's using "SSP". Considering the many other credibility problems noted by the tribunal, the two uncontested incongruities in the Applicant's story and the uncontested rejection of the documentation provided, I cannot conclude - even though its conclusion about the SSP and DSP seems odd - that the tribunal made an overall patently unreasonable decision. Therefore, this application is dismissed.
[17] Neither counsel recommended the certification of a question. I am satisfied that no serious question of general importance arises out of this matter. No question will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No serious question of general importance is certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3621-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHAMIM AKHTAR,ABDUL REHMAN AHAMAD, ABDUL JABBAR AHMAD, MARRYUM MUBEEN AND ABDULLAH AHMAD TOORv.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Québec
DATE OF HEARING: June 29, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE
AND ORDER: BEAUDRY
APPEARANCES:
Jean-François Bertrand FOR APPLICANTS
Michel Pépin FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bertrand, Deslauriers FOR APPLICANTS
Montréal (Québec)
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal (Québec)