Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20031016

Docket: IMM-5618-02

Citation: 2003 FC 1201

Toronto, Ontario, October 16th, 2003

Present:    The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer                 

BETWEEN:

                               CHUGH NANIK

                                                                Applicant

                                   and

             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                               Respondent

                         REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                 This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated October 23, 2002, wherein the Board determined that Nanik Chugh (the "applicant") was not a Convention refugee.

[2]                 The applicant is a Pakistani national. He travelled to Canada in June 2000, left and came back twice and then claimed refugee status in January 2001. He based his claim on threats and an alleged attack on his office by Muslims extremists.

[3]                 Irrespective of the non-credibility finding the Board found that there was no objective basis to the applicant's claim of being attacked and threatened with death by Hindu-hating Muslim fanatics. Nowhere in his argumentation does the applicant dispute this finding. It is therefore not open for review by this Court.

[4]                 In order for a refugee claim to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that, in addition to having a true subjective fear of persecution, there is an objective basis for this fear. Both requirements must be met before a Convention refugee status can be conferred onto an applicant (Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689).

[5]                 Since the applicant does not meet the requirement that there exists an objective fear of persecution, he will not meet Ward's bipartite test; his claim for refugee status cannot succeed. It is therefore unnecessary to review the Board's determination of credibility.

[6]                 For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.


                                                                            ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed.

"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

J.F.C.


                                                                 FEDERAL COURT             

                                             Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                 IMM-5618-02

STYLE OF CAUSE: CHUGH NANIK

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND    

IMMIGRATION

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:         TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:           OCTOBER 15, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                  TREMBLAY-LAMER, J.

DATED:                                    OCTOBER 16, 2003

APPEARANCES BY:             Mr. M. Max Chaudhary                                     

For the Applicant

Mr. Stephen Jarvis                                               

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

M. Max Chaudhary

                                                   Barrister and Solicitor

Chaudhary Law Office

Toronto, Ontario

For the Applicant

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada     

For the Respondent


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                    Date: 20031016

                                    Docket: IMM-5618-02

BETWEEN:

CHUGH NANIK

                                                                         Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                     Respondent

                                                   

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

                                                   


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.