Federal Court Decisions

     IMM-3051-96

BETWEEN:

     SALIM AHMED CHAUDHARY

     FHARZENA SALIM CHAUDHARY

     ZEHRA SALIM CHAUDHARY

     SARA SALIM CHAUDHARY

     EMMNA SALIM CHAUDHARY

     Applicants

AND:

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

JOYAL, J.:

     This is an application for judicial review of an August 7, 1996, decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("CRDD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board, wherein it was determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees. The applicants seek to have the tribunal's decision set aside and the matter referred back to the CRDD for redetermination.

I.      FACTS

     The main applicant, Ahmed Chaudhary, his wife Fharzena Salim Chaudhary and their three minor children, Zehra Salim Chaudhary, Sara Salim Chaudhary and Emmna Salim Chaudhary, are citizens of Pakistan. They arrived in Canada on September 8, 1994, and claimed refugee status soon thereafter on September 19, 1994. The main applicant bases his fear of persecution on his religious convictions as a Lahori Ahmadi, and the other applicants, on their membership in a particular social group (the family).

(1)      Religion

     Ahmed Chaudhary claims to be a Lahori Ahmadi. Although his membership in the Anjuman was suspended because of his marriage to a Sunni Muslim who refused to convert, the applicant says he continued to practise his religion. He also claims that he has suffered persecution on account of his faith. In particular, he referred in his testimony to the following incidents:

a)      In 1989, he claims to have been abducted, detained and tortured for two days by members of the Mohajir Quami Movement;

b)      In 1993, he purports to have been detained for ten days by the police on false charges of poisoning a non-Ahmadi girl. He was released upon payment of a bribe;

c)      In 1994, he alleges that fundamentalists burned and looted his shop. His brother was supposedly injured in the attack. When he reported the incident to the police, they refused to register the case without further investigation.

(2)      Particular Social Group

     The other applicants' claims derive from the principal applicant's claim. They define the particular social group as the family and allege that there is a reasonable chance they would be suffer persecution by reason of the main applicant's religion.

II. CRDD DECISION

     In rejecting his claim for refugee status, the CRDD held that the principal applicant was not a Lahori Ahmadi. Having found the main applicant to be lacking credibility, the panel had no other choice but to conclude that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution.

     The CRDD's conclusion as to the applicant's identity as a Lahori Ahmadi was based on two specific findings with respect to the documents submitted into evidence by the applicant to corroborate his contention:

(1)      Letter from the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Lahore

     As proof of his membership in the Ahmadiyya community, the main applicant submitted a letter written by the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Lahore and dated January 22 1996. This letter indicates that the applicant was spurned by the Ahmadiyya community when he married a non-Ahmadi woman. The Anjuman writes that since then, he has had no further contact with the applicant.

     The CRDD refused to give much weight to this letter as proof of the applicant's religious identity. It found the letter was fraudulent. In reaching this conclusion, the panel relied on a letter from Dr. Norman Malik of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore Inc. (USA), whom it considered to be an expert witness in this area. Dr. Malik has been given special responsibilities by the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Lahore for matters pertaining to asylum seekers in North America, including Anjuman membership and membership documentation. It is Dr. Malik's opinion that the Anjuman's letter is fraudulent for the following three reasons:

a)      The name of the General Secretary of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Lahore, who signed the letter, was wrongly spelled as Mansoor Ahmad rather than Mansur Ahmad;

b)      The signature on the letter was not that of Mansur Ahmad;

c)      At the time the letter was written, Mansur Ahmad was no longer General Secretary of the Anjuman. He had, in fact, resigned in October 1995.

The applicant was unable to refute these claims.

(2)      Applicant's Birth Certificate

     The panel also discounted the applicant's birth certificate as evidence of the applicant's membership in the Ahmadiyya community. The said birth certificate is in Urdu with handwritten English translations above the Urdu words. It contains in typed English the following reference: "Religion of Child: (Lahori Ahmadi)". However, there is no equivalent Urdu reference to religion.

     As for the other applicants, their claims were simultaneously rejected. As the CRDD noted, since the other applicants base their claims on their membership in the family of the claimant, "it follows that there is no reasonable chance that they would suffer persecution by reason of his religion"¹.

III. ISSUES

The applicants raise the following issues:

1.      Whether the principles of natural justice were breached by the fact that the applicants were not given the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Malik.

2.      Whether the principles of natural justice were breached when the CRDD relied upon the evidence of Dr. Malik, whose expertise was being challenged by the applicants.

3.      Whether the CRDD erred in not considering independently from her husband's, the wife's claim that she feared persecution by reason of her religion.

I should briefly comment on these questions.

IV. ANALYSIS

     With respect to the cross-examination of Dr. Malik, there is no indication that the applicants were not given fair notice of his evidence by way of the correspondence submitted to the panel.

     Secondly, it is the CRDD's prerogative, as the trier of facts, to evaluate and determine the weight to be given to the evidence before it. It was reasonable for the panel to determine that Dr. Malik was knowledgeable and reliable.

     Lastly, it was reasonable for the CRDD to conclude that the other applicants' claims were based primarily on the events outlined by the main applicant. There was nothing in the Personal Information Forms to indicate otherwise.

V. CONCLUSION

     In these circumstances, I should deny the application for judicial review.

     L-Marcel Joyal

     _________________________

     J U D G E

O T T A W A, Ontario

July 7, 1997.

__________________

¹      Record at p. 14.