Date: 20011101
Docket: IMM-6545-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1188
BETWEEN:
IRSHAD ATHAR CHAUDHRY, ATHAR ALMAS,
MOOSA IRSHAD, RUBAB ATHAR
Applicants
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Refugee Division"), determining that the principal applicant is not a Convention refugee. The applicant, his wife, and their two children are citizens of Pakistan.
[2] The applicant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his political opinion and membership in a particular social group. His wife and his children based their claims on his.
[3] The Refugee Division summarized the facts alleged by the applicant in support of his claim in the following manner.
[4] In November 1990, the applicant became a member of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) (founded by his father) and was actively involved in it until he left for Canada. He was appointed general secretary of the PPP in Kali Suba with responsibility for, among other things, preparation of agendas for meetings. The applicant alleges that he was harassed and threatened on several occasions by Pakistan Muslim League (PML) goons as a result of his activities.
[5] During a PPP meeting held in October 1999, the applicant and some others spoke against the military coup and called for a protest movement. That incident was reported in the newspapers and the applicant was detained for one night. When he was released, he was warned not to criticize the government.
[6] On May 15, 2000, the applicant acted as the stage secretary during a PPP rally to denounce the military government and its atrocities against small business people. At that rally, one of the participants threw a brick and injured a police officer. As a result of that incident, the rally was disrupted.
[7] On his way home, the applicant ran into his brother-in-law who told him that the army and the police were looking for him. He also learned a little later that the police had filed a "First Information Report" against him and that the army was searching for him because of his opposition.
[8] Fearing for his life, the applicant and his family left the country on May 20, 2000, and arrived in Canada on May 23, 2000, and claimed refugee status.
[9] The Refugee Division concluded that the applicant's account was not credible because of the numerous inconsistencies in his testimony and in the documentary evidence.
[10] First, on the central element of his claim, the Refugee Division did not believe that the rally took place.
[11] Contrary to the submissions of counsel for the applicant, I am of the view that that conclusion is supported by the applicant's testimony. At his examination, the applicant had said that there were approximately 2,000 people at the rally on May 15. The panel inferred that the rally had been an outdoor event, given the number. When confronted with the fact that the law had prohibited the holding of outdoor rallies since March 2000, the applicant explained that the rally had taken place in a yard surrounded by walls but with no roof. In the panel's opinion, it was unlikely that 2,000 people could have gathered within four walls. That conclusion was not unreasonable.
[12] With respect to the police presence, the Refugee Division found the allegation that the police had been invited by the PPP when the purpose of the rally was to speak against the military government implausible. Here again, I cannot regard that inference as unreasonable.
[13] As well, we cannot criticize the panel for finding it implausible that a participant could have taken a brick from the wall to attack a police officer.
[14] With respect to the documentary evidence, the applicant first argues that the Refugee Division exhibited bias when it concluded that the documents he filed were forged.
[15] He cited Haque v. Canada (M.C.I.) (2000), 8 Imm. L.R. (3rd) 248, in support of that position. In Haque (at para. 14), the Refugee Division had concluded that the applicant's documents were forgeries "as often occurs with refugee claims made by citizens of Bangladesh". That statement was not supported by the evidence. In this case, the Refugee Division relied on the evidence of the "German Office". The fact that the Refugee Division preferred one piece of evidence to another does not establish that it was biased.
[16] The panel's conclusion that the PPP was not systematically harassed by the military government was based on a Response to Information Request dated March 2000 stating that, despite the military coup, the PPP had been able to engage in its political activities. Lastly, the panel's conclusion that there was no objective basis to the applicant's fear of the PML was also based on the documentary evidence, which states that that political party lost power in 1999 and its leaders and activists were detained, and that the party had expressed its desire to work together with the PPP on restoring democracy.
[17] There is therefore no reason that would justify the intervention of this Court. Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
JUDGE
Montréal, Quebec
November 1, 2001.
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20011101
Docket: IMM-6545-00
Between:
IRSHAD ATHAR CHAUDHRY
ATHAR ALMAS
MOOSA IRSHAD
RUBAB ATHAR
Applicants
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6545-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: IRSHAD ATHAR CHAUDHRY
ATHAR ALMAS
MOOSA IRSHAD
RUBAB ATHAR
Applicants
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 31, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
DATED: November 1, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Éveline Fiset FOR THE APPLICANT
Greg Moore FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Éveline Fiset
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT