Date: 20040318
Docket: IMM-2012-03
Citation: 2004 FC 390
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD SHAHID
BUSHRA SHAHID
MUHAMMAD AHMAD
MUHAMMAD DAUD
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[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 March 5, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicants are not Convention refugees or "persons in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Mr. Muhammad Shahid, his wife Bushra Shahid and their two children Muhammad Ahmad and Muhammad Daud are citizens of Pakistan. Mrs. Shahid is the designated representative of the two children who base their claims on those of their parents. Mr. and Mrs. Shahid submitted individual narratives in their Personal Information Forms.
[3] Mr. Shahid bases his claim on political opinion, specifically his membership and active involvement in the Pakistan Peoples Party. Mrs. Shahid bases her claim on membership in a particular social group, specifically family, and on her religious beliefs as a Shia. In addition, both Mr. and Mrs. Shahid allege that they are persons in need of protection because they face a risk of torture, a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment in Pakistan.
[4] The Board found that the applicants were not Convention refugees or "persons in need of protection" because it found that they were not credible.
[5] The applicants submit that the Board ignored, misinterpreted and microscopically examined some of the evidence. Specifically, the applicants refer to the evidence in support of Mrs. Shahid's allegations, namely exhibits P-1 to P-22. It has been established that a tribunal must be presumed to have considered all of the evidence that was presented to it, and it is not obligated to mention in its reasons all the evidence it has taken into account before rendering its decision (Taher v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1433 (T.D.) (QL)). The assessment and the weight attributed to documents is a matter within the discretion of the tribunal assessing the evidence (Aleshkina v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 784 (T.D.) (QL)). A review of the Board's decision and the hearing transcripts reveals that the Board appropriately considered all of the evidence before rendering its decision.
[6] It also appears from the record that the Board seriously questioned the applicants' allegations pertaining to the existence of the alleged persecution as well as the context in which
the persecution is alleged to have occurred. For example, the Board was reluctant to accept that a Warrant was issued against Mr. Shahid and the Board also found that the applicants' behaviour contradicted their alleged fear of persecution. These findings with regard to the applicants' credibility were central to the applicants' claim because they put into question the very ground of their fear of persecution. As the Federal Court of Appeal has stated in Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, a tribunal's perception that a claimant is not credible with respect to a material element of his or her claim for refugee status may amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence for that claim. Moreover, the Board may reject uncontradicted evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole, or where inconsistencies are found in the evidence (see Monteiro v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1720 (T.D.) (QL) and Akinlolu v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1997] F.C.J. No. 296 (T.D.) (QL)). In this case, the Board clearly explained its reasons for doubting the applicants' credibility on the basis of a number of discrepancies and omissions and I am not convinced that the Board acted arbitrarily in concluding that the applicants were not credible.
[7] It is trite law that this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Board with respect to credibility findings unless the applicants can demonstrate that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). The Board is a specialized tribunal capable of assessing the plausibility and credibility of a testimony, to the extent that the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1994), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.)).
[8] For the reasons outlined above, I am of the opinion that the Board committed no patently unreasonable error in its disposition of this case. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 18, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2012-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MUHAMMAD SHAHID, BUSHRA SHAHID, MUHAMMAD AHMAD, MUHAMMAD DAUD v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 11, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: March 18, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Me Viken Artinian FOR THE APPLICANTS
Me Mario Blanchard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jeffrey Nadler FOR THE APPLICANTS
Attorney
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario