Ottawa, Ontario, January 26, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
AND HAMDA ANJUM
and
ANDIMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Shazia Rani came to Canada from Pakistan with her two children. She says that she fled Pakistan after Sunni militants threatened and attacked her husband and the rest of the family, who are devout Shias. Her husband was a prominent Shia in their community and president of their imam bargah.
[2] A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Ms. Rani's claim because it disbelieved her account of events. Ms. Rani argues that the Board overlooked important evidence, failed to take account of her cultural milieu, and unfairly speculated about her real motives for coming to Canada. I have carefully considered Ms. Rani's submissions, but I cannot find a basis for overturning the Board's decision. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
1. Did the Board engage in speculation, rather than confining itself to fact-finding?
2. Did the Board fail to consider cultural differences when it assessed the plausibility of Ms. Rani's account of events?
3. Did the Board overlook important evidence?
[3] I can overturn the Board's decision only if it was unsupported by the evidence before it.
II. Analysis
A. Did the Board engage in speculation, rather than confining itself to fact-finding?
[4] Near the end of the Board's reasons, after it had concluded that it did not believe Ms. Rani's testimony, it speculated about the real reason she came to Canada. It said that Ms. Rani was not motivated by fear but "by a wish to see a better life for herself and her family". It suggested that Ms. Rani's husband, rather than having gone missing back in Pakistan as she had contended, probably travelled with her or planned to join her soon.
[5] There was certainly no evidence supporting these statements. Had they formed part of the Board's analysis of the substance of Ms. Rani's claim, they would clearly have been reviewable findings. However, as I read the Board's statements, they amounted to extraneous remarks, not part of its assessment of the evidence. The Board's statements may have been gratuitous, but they are not grounds for overturning its decision.
B. Did the Board fail to consider cultural differences when it assessed the plausibility of Ms. Rani's account of events?
[6] Ms. Rani stated that members of the Sepa-e-Sehaba (SSP), a militant Sunni group, had stormed her home, fired gun shots and threatened her husband. Her husband fled. She remained in the home with her children for another three weeks before moving in with her mother.
[7] The Board questioned why she would remain in her home and expose the children to further harm. It discounted her testimony that she could not move out of her house until she had heard from her husband and received his permission to do so. The Board concluded that "even taking into account the educational level of the claimant and the cultural submissiveness of some wives in Pakistan,... the protection and safety of one's children transcends cultural differences..."
[8] The Board has a duty to assess the evidence before it and to do so in a manner that is sensitive to the social and cultural context from which it arises. At the same time, the Board must determine whether a refugee claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution, which includes an objective standard. Here, the Board concluded that Ms. Rani's conduct was inconsistent with a genuine fear of the SSP because she and her children remained living at the site of the attack. The Board considered her position - that she could not move the family out of the home without her husband's blessing - but concluded that, as reluctant as she might be to make that move unilaterally, her hesitation must surely have been subordinate to her desire to protect her children. I cannot fault the Board for its analysis of this evidence.
C. Did the Board overlook important evidence?
[9] Ms. Rani presented to the Board some documents that corroborated her version of events. She argues that the Board had a duty to consider the value of these documents expressly before finding that her story was not to be believed.
[10] The principal documents Ms. Rani relies on are letters from two imam bargahs. These letters contain brief summaries of the events leading to Mr. Rani's departure from Pakistan. It is not clear whether the authors of the letters had first-hand knowledge or whether they were simply re-stating a version of events that had been related to them. In the circumstances, I do not regard these documents as being of such significance that they required explicit reference and analysis by the Board: Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425 (T.D.) (QL).
[11] Ms. Rani also argues that the Board overlooked evidence that her husband was president of their imam bargah. The Board noted that most of the Shias targeted by the SSP have a high-profile, which Ms. Rani and her children did not have. The Board did not expressly address the possibility that they would continue to be targeted as family members of a high-profile Shia.
[12] Again, this finding came near the end of the Board's decision, after it had already concluded that the events leading to Ms. Rani's departure did not take place. Further, by her own evidence, her husband had disappeared and had ceased to have any contact with her. There was no reason to think that the family would continue to have any special profile that would place them at risk if they returned to Pakistan. I cannot conclude that the Board's analysis of the evidence was faulty.
[13] Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL ANDSOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1113-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHAZIA RANI ET AL v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, ON.
DATE OF HEARING: January 11, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
APPEARANCES:
Karina Thompson FOR THE APPLICANTS
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Robert I. Blanshay FOR THE APPLICANTS Toronto, ON
tOTTT
Toronto, ON FOR THE RESPONDENT