Date: 20000830
Docket: IMM-6184-99
BETWEEN:
USMAN RANA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM, J:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD), dated December 8, 1999, in which the CRDD determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act.1 Leave to commence this application for judicial review was granted on June 26, 2000.
Background
[2] The applicant, Usman Rana, is a 42 year old citizen of Pakistan. He fears persecution at the hands of Muslim fundamentalists based on his religion because his father was a Muslim and his mother is a Catholic Christian. The applicant also fears persecution by the police arising from the alleged influence of a man named Choudhry Ghazanfar.2
[3] In his personal information form (PIF), the applicant sets out the events which led him to seek asylum in Canada.3 He claims that he faced discrimination and beatings in school at the hands of the majority Sunni Muslims and that he had to complete his secondary education at a private Christian school. He claims that he faced discrimination in every aspect of his life because his mother is a Christian in a predominantly Muslim country.
[4] The applicant states that he ran his own grocery store and was helped by a Christian school friend, Tahir Masiah. The applicant also states in his PIF that he lived in middle class circumstances, while Tahir lived in a lower class area like most Christians.
[5] On June 30, 1997 the applicant's father died. Before his death, he donated a small piece of land on which a school was to be built for Christian children. In his testimony before the CRDD, the applicant stated that his father had stipulated that the land was not to be transferred to a single person, but rather to a welfare organization. Although such an organization exists, legal title to the land remains with the father's estate because the Christians lack money and are frightened of opposition from the municipality. However, power of attorney has been given to four people for the purpose of building a school on the land.4
[6] The applicant states in his PIF that on May 15, 1998 Choudhry Ghazanfar, a man of wealth and influence, raped a 20 year old Christian woman who worked in his house as a cleaner. She is also a relative of the applicant's friend Tahir. According to the applicant, he and Tahir went to the police over this matter, but no action was ever taken. The applicant claims that this led to threats from Ghazanfar, who was also apparently threatening the applicant to give up the land his father had donated.
[7] In his PIF, the applicant states that he had never been to a mosque or a church because his parents did not want to force their children to choose a religion. At the hearing before the CRDD, the applicant testified that he went to church with his mother every Christmas and that he went with his father for annual Eit prayers. He testified that his inclinations were towards Christianity and that in Pakistan he occasionally attended a small Catholic church named for St. Peter.5 The applicant, however, was unable to name any sacraments or holy days and could not tell the CRDD much about the Catholic religion. He also testified that he was very close to his mother and that she gave him a Bible, but that he was unable to practice his religion openly in Pakistan because conditions did not allow for that.6 Later on, however, he testified that he does not practice any religion, does not have any deep religious beliefs, and is not a member of the Church today.7 He also states in his application for refugee status that his religion is "Islam".8
[8] The applicant claims that Ghazanfar, the local (Muslim) priest, and some others told him that he had to choose between either Christianity or Islam, and that he had to perform the Friday prayers in the mosque. He also had to donate his father's land to the mosque and stop supporting the alleged rape victim. He did not perform the prayers, and refused their other demands, at which point he claims they threatened him with death.
[9] The applicant claims that the Muslim fundamentalists somehow discovered that he had been invited to attend a meeting in Chicago by evangelist Morris Cerullo, and that they filed a complaint against him with the police on July 3, 1998. The gist of the complaint is that the applicant works against Islam as well as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The applicant claims the police detained him on July 4, 1998 and held him for six days, during which time he was beaten and mistreated. He also claims that his grocery store was burned down by Muslim fundamentalists. Before he was released from police custody, his uncle signed an undertaking that the applicant would be a good Muslim.
[10] Another police summons was issued for the applicant on July 13, 1998. One of his cousins, who is a police officer, advised him to go into hiding.9 The applicant states also that his mother told his friend, at whose house he was hiding, that a fatwa had been issued against him on July 15, 1998 by announcement in the mosque, and that he was to be killed.
[11] The friend told the applicant that his mother said he should leave the country, which he did on July 16, 1998. He arrived in Montreal on July 25, 1998 and claimed Convention refugee status on August 14, 1998.
Tribunal's Decision
[12] In its decision, the CRDD found that the applicant is not a Christian and is not affiliated with that or any religion. The panel held that he was attempting to embellish his claim by asserting that he is affiliated with Christianity and that this led to persecution. The panel held that the applicant did not practice any religion in Pakistan and that there was insufficient credible evidence to indicate that Muslim fundamentalists had any interest in his religious affiliation. Furthermore, according to the panel, no credible evidence indicated that the applicant could have been perceived to be a Christian.
[13] With regard to the applicant's father's donation of land, the panel found that the applicant had no right to the land and thus he could not give it to the mosque. A letter he produced from his brother which indicates that the applicant's problems with Ghazanfar will go away if he gives the land to the mosque was given little or no weight by the panel as they found it to be self-serving and crafted to influence the outcome of the claim.
[14] The panel found the allegation of persecution by Ghazanfar due to his support for the alleged rape victim to be nothing more than a personal vendetta, if true. According to the panel, it does not amount to persecution and has no nexus to any Convention ground.
Applicant's Position
[15] The applicant submits that the CRDD applied the wrong test and definition of Convention refugee. It appears that the applicant contends that the panel misconstrued the evidence when it concluded that he could not be perceived to be a Christian.
[16] The applicant contends that the panel failed to consider the cumulative effect of harassment suffered by the applicant since his school days. According to the applicant, the totality of the evidence clearly shows persecution connected to Convention grounds.
[17] The applicant also contends that his claim was based on his race and ethnic origin. However, the applicant did not indicate what evidence or arguments support this claim. Indeed, these grounds were not mentioned in his PIF. The applicant also argues that the basis of his claim is that he was unable to practice his religion in Pakistan. This allegation is rather confusing as his testimony regarding whether or not he was a Christian or practised Christianity is inconsistent, again, as I have stated, the applicant stated in his application for refugee status that his religion is "Islam".
Respondent's Position
[18] The respondent maintains that the CRDD properly directed itself to both the question of whether the applicant was a Christian and whether he could have been perceived as such by anyone, and concluded that there was no credible evidence indicating that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for either of those claims.
[19] The respondent submits that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent on several points, including whether he practised a religion in Pakistan, whether he is a Christian, and whether he ever went to a church or mosque while in Pakistan. The respondent contends that even if this evidence had been consistent, the applicant has not shown that he has any affiliations with Christianity or that he has suffered the type of discrimination Christians have suffered in Pakistan. Unlike most Christians there, he lived in middle class surroundings and obtained secondary and higher education.
Issues
[20] Whether the CRDD erred in concluding that the applicant is neither a Christian, nor could he have been perceived as one.
[21] Whether the CRDD erred in concluding that there was no nexus established between the applicant's treatment by Choudhry Ghazanfar and one of the Convention grounds.
Analysis
[22] The panel examined the applicant's religious affiliation and practices, which formed the basis of his claim, and concluded that he has no clear affiliation with any religion. The panel found that there was no credible evidence that Muslim fundamentalists had any interest in his religious affiliation and that he was neither a Christian, nor could he be so perceived. A review of the applicant's PIF and the transcript of his testimony before the CRDD does not reveal any errors made by the CRDD on this point. Indeed, the panel's findings are reasonable and should not be disturbed.
[23] With regard to the issue of the applicant's father's land, there was no credible evidence before the CRDD to indicate that Muslim fundamentalists had any interest in the applicant or this land. The panel gave very little weight to what it termed a self-serving letter from the applicant's brother which attempted to establish a motive for Ghazanfar's alleged interest in the applicant and the land. It was well within the panel's purview to make such a finding and nothing indicates that it was made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard to the evidence.
[24] The panel's conclusion that if Ghazanfar is out to get the applicant for supporting an alleged rape victim then this amounts to a personal vendetta, is similarly reasonable and should not be disturbed. The jurisprudence is quite clear that there must be a link between the harm or persecution feared and one of the Convention refugee definition grounds. Absent such a nexus, the claim fails. Whether a nexus exists is a question of fact which is well within the panel's expertise.10
[25] In essence, the panel's conclusions are grounded on the facts of the case. The applicant has failed to show that the panel based its decision on any erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard for the material before it. Quite simply, it was open for the panel to conclude, as it did, that the applicant has no affiliation with any religion and could not have been perceived as Christian. Furthermore, it was open to the CRDD to find that there is no nexus established between the actions of Ghazanfar and a Convention refugee ground.
[26] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[27] No question was submitted by the parties for certification.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.C.
Calgary, Alberta
August 30, 2000
__________________2In his memorandum, the applicant raises, for what appears to be the first time, additional grounds for persecution: race, ethnic origin, and inability to practice his religion; Applicant's Record, pp. 53-63, at paras. 1, 17, and 18.
3Applicant's Record, pp. 17-28.
5Transcript, pp. 322-323. However, on his PIF, the applicant indicated that his religion is Islam, Applicant's Record, p. 18.
9At the hearing before the CRDD, the applicant testified that he went into hiding immediately following his release from police detention; Transcripts, pp. 312-315.
10Mia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-2677-99) (January 26, 2000) at paras. 14-15.