Docket: IMM-944-02
Citation: 2003 FCT 471
BETWEEN:
NAWAZ AHMAD
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This application is for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division ("the CRDD"), dated January 30, 2002, wherein it found the Applicant not to be a Convention refugee. The latter seeks an order quashing that decision and remitting the application to a differently constituted tribunal.
[2] The applicant is a 46 years old citizen of Pakistan originally from Sialkot. He is married and the father of five children. Just before fleeing Pakistan, he worked in the construction field in the Sialkot area.
[3] The applicant is a Shia Muslim by birth and an active member of his religious community. He alleges having suffered discrimination at work because of his Shia background. He claims that the climate of intolerance and the cycle of violence against the Shia community rendered his life difficult; he alleges also having been socially discriminated against as he would face for example rumours involving him in an adulterous relationship. Finally, his children were discriminated against at school for their religious background.
[4] This general environment forced the applicant and his family to relocate in Sialkot 20 miles away. The reason for this choice was that an important Shia minority was settled in that city.
[5] The applicant alleges that the Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan organization (SSP) were forcing Shia members to pay protection money. Indeed, in October 1998, some SSP goons would have entered the applicant's house and broken furniture in order to extort money from him and his family. His son would have refused to comply and they would have left without taking any money after spreading threats.
[6] In October 1998, the applicant's son started a campaign of Shia mobilisation by printing out posters and even complaining to police authorities about the harassment of his family. The applicant alleges that a few days later, the Criminal Investigation Agency (CIA) raided the SSP leader's residence and proceeded to his arrest and the recovery of illegal weapons. In retaliation, the SSP would have threatened the applicant's family.
[7] On November 9, 1998, the applicant's son was killed during an alleged SSP attack conducted against the local Imam Bargah and two other Shia persons were also injured. The applicant alleges that notwithstanding that he made a complaint, the police authorities did not investigate the matter.
[8] In March 1999, the arrested SSP leader was released and would have threatened the applicant that should he keep up his activities, he would face the fate of his son. The applicant alleges having tried to seek help from the press, but they were apparently reticent. He would also have met with high officials in the police department and government who would have promised to help him. However, they did nothing.
[9] Following the military coup of General Pervez Musharraf in October 1999, the applicant attempted to activate or reopen the inquiry related to his son's assassination. Accordingly, he would have sent a written application to the army cell monitoring team in January 2000 wherein he would have mentioned the name of the arrested SSP leader, Mr. Aslam, in relation to the crime.
[10] In April 2000, the applicant's son's case was referred back to the local police authority; requested him to provide proof that the SSP leader was involved in his son's murder. According to their investigation, the only evidence they had was that his son had been victim of random acts of violence in the past. This outcome extremely disappointed the applicant.
[11] On June 16, 2000, the SSP allegedly entered the applicant's house and threatened to kill him and his family if they did not leave the area. Consequently, the applicant's family moved to Lahore, Pakistan.
[12] Finally, on July 10, 2000, the police raided the applicant's house and wanted to arrest him in relation to the shooting of an SSP leader. The applicant believed that the police were collaborating with the SSP, he decided to leave Pakistan in order to seek protection abroad.
[13] The applicant alleges a well-founded fear of persecution on religious grounds at the hands of the SSP goons and the police in Pakistan.
[14] The CRDD panel found numerous contradictions and inconsistencies within the applicant's story. It rejected his claim on the ground that he lacked credibility, particularly with respect to the story of the assassination of his son.
[15] The CRDD panel noted that the documentary evidence revealed that the state security apparatus and the police are fighting criminal-religious groups such as the SSP. It also showed that numerous SSP leaders and workers were arrested by state security apparatus in the past in the state's attempt to curb the sectarian violence. More particularly, since the state's ban on public political activities in March 2000, activists and leaders of the SSP were arrested for holding religious gatherings and making provocative speeches. Moreover, the panel noted that the documentary evidence established that since the military coup in October 1999, the armed-religious groups are under surveillance as they represent a threat to the State of Pakistan itself.
[16] The panel stated that this documentary evidence as well as the applicant's own testimony about the October 1998 arrest of the SSP leader revealed that police are targeting and attempting to crush the SSP. The panel concluded that the applicant's affirmation that the police is looking to arrest him for an alleged shooting of an SSP leader is implausible and unsupported by the objective documentary evidence and partly by his own allegations.
[17] Based on these conclusions and given the lack of credible and trustworthy evidence presented by the applicant, the CRDD panel concluded that the story relative to the major elements of his claim was not credible. Consequently, the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan at the hands of the SSP and the police.
[18] The applicant submits that the CRDD panel's decision is primarily based on findings of lack of credibility which were in turn based on inferences unsupported by the evidence, made in the absence of any evidence, or based on erroneous findings of fact.
[19] Following my careful review of the written submissions of the parties and the Certified Tribunal Record as well as the documentary evidence, I am satisfied that the panel did not err in its overall assessment of both applicant's credibility and evidence.
[20] I note that the applicant was given ample opportunities at the hearing to clarify his story and explain the discrepancies in his oral and written testimony. However, as it appears from the panel's reasons and the transcript, he only added to the incoherent nature of his testimony. The applicant cannot, at this point, question vaguely the translation of the panel's questions to attempt to minimize the impact of the answers he gave at the hearing. In these circumstances, I cannot find that the panel's conclusion on this point was unreasonable.
[21] I agree that the panel's finding with respect to the applicant's demeanor was patently unreasonable. Indeed, accepting the panel's position would lead to the absurd conclusion that a person having experienced traumatic events in the past must absolutely show some emotion when recalling such events because of which his credibility could be impugned. While in some cases this might be a factor to be taken into account in assessing one's credibility, it can hardly be argued that an outburst of cries or emotions is a prerequisite to a finding that a refugee claimant is credible.
[22] In the present case, the panel unduly emphasized the lack of emotion on the part of the applicant when recalling the events surrounding his son's death to conclude that it did not believe the applicant's son was killed. However, it completely ignored specific relevant documentary evidence supporting the applicant's allegations. These consisted of the Death Certificate of the applicant's son, the Post Mortem Report as well as a newspaper article.[1]
[23] In my view, the evidence relied upon by the applicant does not challenge the well-foundedness of the panel's decision on an assessment of the documentary evidence. The applicant has not pointed to any document showing that the Pakistani police force pays lip service to policing the SSP and in effect is cooperating with them. Rather, a hard look at the documentary evidence demonstrates that since the military coup of October 1999, the government undertook a major effort to curb religious extremism and the police accelerated a crackdown on members of several extremist religious groups.[2] However, despite the government's ban on groups involved in sectarian killings, violence between rival Sunni and Shia Muslim groups persists since 1999, bringing into question the government's ability to prevent sectarian and religious violence.
[24] In its reasons, the panel referred to several documents indicating that police are actually cracking down on radical organizations such as the SSP. One of these documents entitled "Terrorism update, Pakistan: SSP leaders workers arrested in Faislabad", dated October 8, 2000, indicates that many activists and leaders of the SSP were arrested for holding a religious gathering without permission and for making provocative speeches at a Bazaar in Faislabad on October 6, 2000.[3] In my view, the applicant's testimony to the effect that the police were cooperating with the SSP or, at least, favouring them, is entirely in contradiction with his own allegations that the police had arrested and detained for approximately four months the main SSP leader allegedly responsible for the applicant's persecution. Further, it is not support by the documentary evidence.
[25] In my view, the panel was entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the applicant and had no obligation to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely: Zhou v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1087 (QL) (F.C.A.); Vassilieva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1323 (QL) (F.C.T.D.).
[26] Where the panel, as here, concludes that an applicant's claim, including the specific facts to which some personal documents refer to, are clearly not credible, it is not an error on its part not to explain why it did not give probative value to documents which purport to substantiate allegations found not to be credible: Hamid v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1293 (QL) (F.C.T.D.); Songue v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 1020 (QL) (F.C.T.D.); and Syed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 597(QL) (F.C.T.D.). Further, the applicant's personal documents, while relevant with respect to the death of his son, are inconclusive as to the circumstances of his death and to the perpetrators of the crime. In my view, they do not affect the heart of the panel's assessment of the applicant's claim.
[27] In light of the foregoing, I am of the view that the panel's overall conclusion regarding the lack of credibility of the applicant's claim is entirely reasonable and does not warrant this Court's intervention. Thus, even accepting that the panel erred in disbelieving that the applicant's son was killed, there are many inconsistencies and incoherences in his testimony casting serious doubt on the circumstances surrounding his son's murder and the police's unwillingness to assist him in finding the perpetrators.
[28] For all these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
April 23, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET : IMM-944-02
STYLE OF CAUSE : NAWAZ AHMAD and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
LIEU DE L'AUDIENCE : Montreal
DATE OF HEARING: April 8, 2003
REASONS : The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau
DATE OF REASONS: April 23, 2003
APPEARANCES : Me Jean François Bertrand
FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Michel Synnott
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD :
Bertrand Deslauriers FOR THE APPLICANT
Montreal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
[1] Tribunal Record, at pages 42, 50, 52-57.
[2] Applicant's Record, at pages 41-42.
[3] Tribunal Record, at page 86.