Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010315

Docket: IMM-3296-00

Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 193

BETWEEN:

ALI ABDALLA ALI

                                                                                              Applicant

                                                 - and -

      THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION

                                                                                          Respondent

                    REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

HENEGHAN J.

Introduction

[1]    Mr. Ali Abdalla Ali (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), dated May 29, 2000. In its decision, the Board determined that the Applicant is not a Convention Refugee.


Facts

[2]    The Applicant is a citizen of Tanzania. He claimed Convention refugee status on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution arising from his membership in the Civic United Front (the "CUF"). Although the Board found that the Applicant was at risk of persecution from the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (the "CMM") government in Zanzibar, it found that, on a balance of probabilities, there was no serious possibility of persecution on the mainland of Tanzania. The Board found that the Applicant had an Internal Flight Alternative ("IFA") in mainland Tanzania, that is Tanganyika.

Applicant's Submissions

[3]    The Applicant claims that the Board erred in rejecting his claim for Convention refugee status by failing to address the fact that he was being sought by the police for failure to comply with a police order. Second, the Applicant submits that there was no evidentiary basis for the Board to conclude that the national authorities, specifically the police, would behave differently on the mainland than in Zanzibar and consequently, there is no basis for the Board to conclude that an IFA was available to him. Third, the Applicant argues that the Board erred in law by requiring him to produce a warrant of arrest to prove that he would be at risk in the mainland, thereby failing to give him the benefit of the doubt as found by the Supreme Court of Canada in Chan v.Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593.


Respondent's Submissions

[4]                The Respondent submits that while the Board found that the Applicant had shown more than a mere possibility of being persecuted in Zanzibar, it had properly considered whether an IFA existed elsewhere in the country. The Board concluded that the mainland provided an IFA and accordingly determined that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee. The Respondent says that the Board's conclusions were reasonably open to it on the basis of the evidence before it, and that the Court should not intervene in this decision.

Analysis

[5]                The standard of review applicable to decisions of the Board is whether the findings of the Board are patently unreasonable; see Conkova v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2000] F.C.J. No. 300 (QL) (T.D.). In this case, the question is whether the finding of the Board on the issue of an IFA in Tanganyika, on the basis that he would not be pursued by the police, is reasonably supported by the evidence.

[6]                The evidence before the Board consisted of the testimony on the Applicant, documentary evidence, and the testimony of a witness who addressed the risk to the Applicant from police in Tanganyika.


[7]                It is clear that the Board relied on documentary evidence to find that the Applicant would not be at risk from the police forces on the mainland. It is also apparent that the Board considered that the absence of a warrant of arrest issued by the police in Zanzibar weakened the Applicant's claim that he would be at risk from the police on the mainland.

[8]                On the basis of the evidence before it, I am of the opinion that the conclusions of the Board were reasonably open to it.    I find no error of law arising from their reliance upon the lack of a warrant of arrest.

ORDER

[9]                The application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel for the Applicant proposed a question for certification but in my opinion the present case does not raise a question of general importance and the question will not be certified.

     "E. Heneghan"

                                                                                               J.F.C.C.                        

Toronto, Ontario

March 15, 2001


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                                                    IMM-3296-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                         ALI ABDALLA ALI

                                                                                                                            Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                        Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:                          TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2001

PLACE OF HEARING:                                    TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                                           HENEGHAN J.

DATED:                                                            THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2001

APPEARANCES BY:                                     Micheal Crane

For the Applicant

Marcel Larouche

                                                                    

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                       Micheal Crane

Barrister & Solicitor

166 Pearl Street, Suite 200

Toronto, Ontario

M5H 1L3

For the Applicant

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                            Date: 20010315

                                                                                        Docket: IMM-3296-00

Between:

ALI ABDALLA ALI

                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                            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.