BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Refugee Board dated the 17th day of November, 2004, wherein it was determined that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh, he arrived in Canada on July 31, 2002 and two weeks later made a claim for protection as a Convention refugee on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership in a particular social group, claiming to be in danger of torture and claiming to face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. A hearing was conducted on May 6, 2004, and a written decision dated the 17th day of November, 2004, was provided.
[3] In that decision, the Board made it abundantly clear that they had credibility concerns with the Applicant's evidence and found much of his testimony to be implausible. The Board stated that one of the issues for determination was the availability of state protection. At pages 5 and 6 of its Reasons, the Board considered the issue of state protection and concluded that the Applicant did not make the efforts required of him, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (A.G.) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, of providing clear and convincing proof of the state's inability to protect him. As a result, the Board drew a negative inference. The Ward decision, given by La Forest J. for the Court, states at pages 724-725:
The issue that arises, then, is how, in a practical sense, a claimant makes proof of a state's inability to protect its nationals as well as the reasonable nature of the claimant's refusal actually to seek out this protection. On the facts of this case, proof on this point was unnecessary, as representatives of the state authorities conceded their inability to protect Ward. Where such an admission is not available, however, clear and convincing confirmation of a state's inability to protect must be provided. For example, a claimant might advance testimony of similarly situated individuals let down by the state [page725] protection arrangement or the claimant's testimony of past personal incidents in which state protection did not materialize. Absent some evidence, the claim should fail, as nations should be presumed capable of protecting their citizens. Security of nationals is, after all, the essence of sovereignty. Absent a situation of complete breakdown of state apparatus, such as that recognized in Lebanonin Zalzali, it should be assumed that the state is capable of protecting a claimant.
[4] A review of the Tribunal Record confirms that the Board was not unreasonable, whether patently or simpliciter, in concluding that in this case, the Applicant had made no effort to provide clear and convincing proof of Bangladesh's inability to provide protection as required by Ward. As a result, as determined in Sarfaz v. Canada(MCI), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1974, this is sufficient to dispose of the matter. It is unnecessary to review the other issues raised by the Applicant, such as failure to consider certain documents, which the Applicant argues are important to a proper determination of the matter.
[5] Accordingly, the application is dismissed. No party urged any question for certification and I find none. There will be no order as to costs.
"Roger T. Hughes"
Toronto, Ontario
September 19, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-10127-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MD HASAN ZAMAN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HUGHES J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Clifford Luyt For the Applicant
Alison Engel For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Clifford Luyt
Waldman & Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario For the Applicant
John H Sims, Q.C
Deputy Attorney General