Date: 20011102
Docket: IMM-6455-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1199
BETWEEN:
BABAR NASIM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board") concluding that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
[2] The allegations of facts are summarized by the Board as follows.
[3] The applicant is a 29 year-old citizen of Pakistan. All of his family, including his wife and daughter, live in Chakwal, Punjab. The applicant works in the family business involving sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products.
[4] As a student, the applicant joined the Muslim Students Federation, which is affiliated to the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), and was president of the local chapter for two years. The applicant participated actively in the elections of 1988 and 1990. He left school in 1990 and became active in the youth wing of the PML and was named president of the youth wing for Chakwal city in 1990 and for Chakwal district in 1991.
[5] The applicant joined the PML in March 1992 and worked for the party's candidate during the 1993 elections. During this election campaign, retired Major-General Tajamal Hussain Malik, candidate for the Pakistan Islamic Front, pressured the applicant and his family to quit the PML and to support him in the election. According to the applicant, Major-General Malik is a powerful person who has much influence with over the military. He has two sons and other close relatives who are military officers.
[6] The applicant was appointed person in charge of the 1997 election campaign for his district. In that campaign, Major-General Malik supported the rival candidate. The PML won these elections. In 1998, municipal elections were held. The applicant's uncle, Chaudhary Muhammad Mushtaq, was the PML backed candidate while Major-General Malik supported his rival. According to the applicant, Major-General Malik warned the applicant of dire consequences if he did not stop his mission against Major-General Malik's candidate. The applicant's uncle won the election in his district.
[7] There was a military coup d'état on October 12, 1999 and martial law was declared. The applicant claims that following this coup, the PML leadership was put in jail, including his uncle, and that Major-General Malik started to harass him again.
[8] The applicant along with some of his colleagues organized a demonstration rally against martial law on October 13, 2000 during which the applicant delivered a speech demanding the reinstatement of the PML government. This rally was disrupted by police and some members of the military who began arresting people. The applicant fled and went to hide at a friend's house. Later that evening, police went to the applicant's home where they arrested his brother, and then later released him.
[9] The applicant's lawyer informed him that a case had been registered against him and four others and that it would be best if he left the country. Consequently, the applicant moved to a friend's house in Peshawar. Having obtained a false passport from a smuggler contacted by his host, the applicant left the country on October 19, 1999 and arrived in Canada on October 20, 1999 where he claimed refugee status on the spot. Since his arrival in Canada, the police have raided his family home on three occasions and his uncle remains in jail to this day.
[10] The Board found that the applicant lacked credibility and that there was insufficient evidence to lead it to believe that, should the applicant return to his country of origin, he would be exposed to a reasonable possibility of persecution.
[11] After a careful review of the transcript, while I agree that the Board may have erred concerning the time of the arrest, this error is not central to the Board's conclusion of lack of credibility and is not sufficient to warrant judicial interference.
[12] The applicant first submits that the Board erred because it misstated the applicant's answer to the question concerning the population of Chakwal. The applicant claims to have said that the district of Chakwal has 300,000 to 400,000 inhabitants, not the city. I disagree. The relevant part of the transcript of the hearing reads:
BY PRESIDING MEMBER (addressing claimant):
Q. You live in the city?
A. Yes.
Q. Which city?
A. Chakwa (phonetic).
Q. Now, when you say you live, not just work, live there?
A. Yes.
BY MEMBER (addressing claimant):
Q. What's the population of Chakwa?
A. Three or four hundred thousand, I cannot say anything for sure.
Q. Okay.
[13] The applicant further claims that the Board erred in finding it implausible that the party executive would be out of touch with the party members in Chakwal after the coup. When asked whether the members had informed the executive of their planned demonstration, the applicant first responded that they had not. He then altered his testimony to say that they had contacted the general secretary of the Chakwal district and that he had approved their plan. The applicant gave a third version, saying that the members had approved the demonstration and had criticised the general secretary for not being at the meeting. Given the variations in his testimony, the Board was entitled to find that the applicant was not credible.
[14] The applicant submits that the Board's finding that it is implausible that retired Major-General Malik would still seek revenge against the applicant is without merit. Although, a different conclusion could have been reached, again, I am unable to find that such a conclusion is unreasonable.
[15] The Board also found it difficult to believe that in a time of crisis, a First Information Report (FIR) would be issued with such speediness against a party member whose political activities were limited in scope and time to a small village. The Board found it incomprehensible that FIR's would be issued against three other speakers at the demonstration but not against any of those arrested. Again, such inferences are not so unreasonable as to warrant the intervention of the Court.
[16] The applicant further claims that the Board erred because it considered the applicant's behaviour at the port of entry. In his port of entry notes, the applicant indicated that the army and the police were not looking for him. Asked to explain this contradiction, the applicant responded that the smuggler who brought him to Canada had told him not to mention it when claiming refugee status. The Board found that such naivety was not credible. Again, it is well established that the Board may consider a claimant's behaviour at the port of entry.
[17] Finally, the applicant submits that the Board's suspicion concerning the documentary evidence is without merit. I disagree. Concerning the applicant's address, the Board noted that the FIR was the only document that showed his address as being Chakwal. The Board found that the applicant's explanations were confusing and contradictory in this regard. The Board also failed to understand the pertinence of a Nawaz Sharif Force card. It was of the opinion that the applicant produced such a card in the absence of a PML card. Finally, the applicant's lack of credibility combined with the Board's knowledge that it is easy to produce forged Pakistani documents led it to give no probative value to the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant in support of his allegations. These findings were based on the evidence and were open for the Board to make.
[18] For all of these reasons, I do not find that the applicant has demonstrated that the Board committed any reviewable error that would entitle the Court to interfere with its decision. The minor error that it did commit is not sufficient to warrant judicial interference. Therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 2, 2001.