Date: 20040531
Docket: IMM-4523-03
Citation: 2004 FC 786
OTTAWA, Ontario, this 31st day of May 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PHELAN
BETWEEN:
ARIF RASHEED
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] This application for judicial review is in respect of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB") determining that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. The critical issues for the RPD were the availability of state protection and changed circumstances in Pakistan.
Background
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan and a Shia Muslim. He claimed a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan organization ("SSP") an anti-Shia group of Sunni Muslims.
[3] The Applicant is a successful businessman, a religious activist who has financially supported various segments of the Shia community.
[4] In his evidence the Applicant claimed that he had been beaten on several occasions, received threats to his life, shot at and that his store employees were beaten and a Shia welfare centre he supported had been vandalized. Following each of these events, the police refused to take action.
[5] While the RPD expressed some credibility concerns, it made no adverse credibility findings.
[6] In its decision, the RPD canvassed the documentary evidence and concluded that since October 1999 the Pakistan government had made significant changes which indicated that state protection would be available to the Applicant if he were returned to Pakistan.
[7] While the RPD acknowledged that there was contradictory evidence and opinion on the availability of state protection, it concluded that the preponderance of documentary evidence suggested that the government had made and was continuing to make serious efforts to deal with sectarian violence and with the SSP in particular.
[8] The RPD followed this Court's decision concerning the legal test for state protection including that an applicant has a high burden to displace the presumption of the availability of state protection where a state has effective control of its territory.
[9] The Applicant submitted that the RPD was selective in its review of documentary evidence, had engaged in speculation and had ignored evidence.
[10] The Applicant's counsel declined to make any oral submissions at the hearing of this matter in this Court, other then by way of reply. The Court was left with only the Applicant's written representations upon which to try to fathom the Applicant's position on the legal and factual issues in this case.
Analysis
[11] Although the Applicant made no submissions as to the appropriate standard of review, the Respondent says that this matter turns on findings of fact for which the standard is patent unreasonableness. I agree.
[12] The RPD did not engage in selective use of the evidence. The RPD recognized that state protection was not perfect and acknowledged that there was some conflicting evidence.
[13] However, the RPD applied Villafranca v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (D) 130, and relied on such documentary evidence as the US Department of State Country Report for Pakistan (for 2001) and the UK Home Office Pakistan Assessment (April 2002) in reaching its conclusion.
[14] This Court has consistently held that, where the RPD has assessed all the evidence, noted evidence both pro and con state protection and reasonably weighed the evidence, the Court will not overturn such finding (see: Malik v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC 189; Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2003 FCT 242).
[15] While the Applicant raised the issue of whether the RPD erred in law by misapplying the Convention refugee definition, the Applicant made no submissions on the point. In any event, the RPD applied the correct rest for protection as set forth in Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 680.
[16] Theefore the PRD made no reviewable error.
[17] For these reasons the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for judicial review of the decision dated April 25, 2003 is dismissed.
2. No question will be certified.
(s) "Michael L. Phelan
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4523-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Arif Rasheed v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 18, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
DATED: May 31, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. John Savaglio FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Mary Matthews FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
John Savaglio
Pickering, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT