Date: 20011217
Docket: IMM-1506-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1397
BETWEEN:
MAHMOOD ALAM KHAN
ZARSANGA ALAM
WALEED ALAM
ALMAS ALAM
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Board (the "Board") which determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
[2] The applicants are Mr. Mahmood Alam Khan, his wife, Mrs. Zarsanga Alam, and their two minor children Waleed Alam and Almas Alam. They are natives of Lahore, Pakistan. They base their claim on political opinion because of Mr. Khan's membership in the Pakistan People's Party (PPP).
[3] The allegations of facts are summarized by the Board as follows.
[4] The applicant joined the PPP in 1993. In the 1993 and 1997 elections, he campaigned for PPP candidates and as a result, was threatened by Muslim League (ML) goons.
[5] In March 1997, the applicant's father-in-law, Mr. Babar was accused of corruption by the Accountability Commission and detained for two weeks. The accusations were linked to his job as Director of Military Land in Rawalpindi. While in detention, the ML tried to get him to help in bringing cases against the PPP to court. He refused and after false cases had been registered against him, he was sent to Adiala jail on March 20, 1997 where he remained until June 12, 1997 when the applicant, with the help of a lawyer, secured his release on bail. The applicant did so notwithstanding the fact that he was being pressured by the ML to cease being involved in the case. He was beaten by ML goons on August 17, 1997.
[6] Almost a year later, in October 1998, the applicant began to receive threatening phone calls and was asked to force his wife to convince her father to accept the charges against him and to help the PML. As a result of these threats on their lives, the applicant and his family moved to Islamabad on October 10, 1998.
[7] In late February 1999, the applicant was taken from his home by members of the Federal Intelligence Agency (FIA). He was asked to convince his father-in-law to accept the charges against him and to be a witness for them. If he did not do so, they threatened to register false cases against him.
[8] As a precautionary measure, the applicant and his family applied for American visas which were issued on March 17,1999.
[9] In April 1999, the applicant participated in protests against the government's declaration of Mrs. Bhutto's incompetence. He was picked up again by the FIA on April 20, 1999 and detained for two days. He agreed to convince his father-in-law to speak against PPP leaders in court and was made to sign a blank paper.
[10] It was this last incident that precipitated the departure of the applicant and his family. They arrived in New York on May 5, 1999 were they remained until July 31, 1999. They then made their way to Canada were they arrived that same day and claimed refugee status at the point of entry.
[11] In support of his claim, the applicant filed a letter from the President of the PPP as well as a letter from the father-in-law's lawyer. Both letters more or less state that the applicant is in danger.
[12] The Board first noted that although the FIA, the police and the army had many opportunities to register charges against the applicant, they did not.
[13] The Board noted that the applicants left the Karachi airport using passports issued in their names and baring their own photographs without any problems with the FIA which is very active in Karachi.
[14] The Board was also of the view that since the courts have already convicted the applicant's father-in-law, Mr. Kahn's intervention is no longer required.
[15] Further, the Board noted that although the applicant and his family had obtained American visas on March 17, 1999, after his initial detention, they did not leave until May 5, 1999 and that, in spite of his intention to claim refugee status in Canada, he and his family remained in the USA from May 5, 1999 until July 31,1999. According to the Board, this delay is not consistent with that of one who has a well-founded fear of persecution.
[16] The applicant submits that the Board failed to consider all of the evidence and that some of its conclusions were not supported by the evidence.
[17] After carefully reviewing the transcript and the Board's reasons for decision, I am satisfied that the Board considered all of the evidence before it. Contrary to the applicant's assertion, the Board did consider the two letters. However, it was entitled to decide the probative value of such documents. (Mahendran v. Canada (M.E.I.), (1991) 134 N.R. 316; Hassan v. Canada (M.E.I.), (1992) 147 N.R. 317.
[18] The applicant further submits that the Board's conclusion that his claim is not well founded is based on speculation and pure conjecture. I disagree. The relevant paragraphs of the Board's decision are the following:
As for the possibility of charges being registered against the claimant, the FIA police and army had many opportunities to do so while he was in Pakistan, which they did not. Moreover, there is no evidence of charges having been laid since the claimant's departure from Pakistan in May 1999. Therefore, the panel concludes the fear is not well-founded.
As for the blank paper being used as a tool against him, the panel does not believe that the FIA, which is very active in Karachi, would have allowed him to leave if they were seriously interested in him. In this respect it is important to remember that the claimant and his family left the Karachi Airport using passports issued in their birth names and bearing their own photographs.
(Tribunal Record at p. 7)
[19] In Sidhu v. Canada (M.E.I.), (1993) 70 F.T.R. 104, the Court held that the Board erred when it engaged in some speculation as to the reasons why the police were looking for the applicant. This is not the situation in the present case. The Board noted that no charges had been laid against the applicant, and that he was released from jail and able to flee the country with his family without difficulty. These are facts not speculation. In my view, the Board's findings were not unreasonable. It was open to the Board to give greater weight to the documentary evidence than to the applicant's inferences concerning the possibility of him being persecuted (Karaseva v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1997] F.C.J. No. 1725 at para 20, online: QL).
[20] Concerning his subjective fear, the applicant explains that the delay in claiming refugee status was due to a lack of information on how to proceed with a refugee claim in Canada.
[21] It is apparent from the transcript of the hearing that the Board took into consideration the applicant's explanation concerning the delay in claiming refugee status. Nevertheless, it was open to the Board to take into account the applicant's behaviour. In Skretyuk v. Canada (M.C.I.), (1998) 47 Imm.L.R. (2d) 86, Dubé J. found that "[a] claimant travelling through a country that is a signatory to the Convention must claim refugee status as soon as possible, or the claim may not be considered serious".
[22] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 17, 2001.