Date: 20001107
Docket: IMM-695-99
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ CHAUDHRY
and SANA RAFIQ CHAUDHRY
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SIMPSON J.
[1] This application is for judicial review, under s. 82.1 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the "Act"), of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated January 21, 1999, in which the Board determined that Mohammad Rafiq Chaudhry (the "Applicant") and his daughter, Sana Rafiq Chaudhry, were not Convention refugees.
Facts
[2] The Applicant, aged 55, is a citizen of Pakistan. The second applicant is his daughter, aged 16 years. Her Convention refugee claim is entirely dependent upon her father's claim.
[3] The Applicant is a Muslim man from the town of Lalamusa in Punjab state in Pakistan. For twenty years, until circa 1989, he was employed as a marine electrical engineer in the city of Karachi. The Applicant lived in Karachi although his work included serving abroad on board merchant ships.
[4] The Applicant was divorced from his wife in 1987, and has a 14 year old son who lives with his mother. The Applicant's parents and five siblings live in Canada and one brother, one sister and a brother-in-law have obtained Convention refugee status in this country based upon their political opinions. The Applicant testified that his family were strong supporters of Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party ("P.P.P."), and for that reason they were persecuted in Pakistan by supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League ("PML") led (until recently) by Nawaz Sharif.
[5] I should note that the Applicant testified that he was not a formal member of the P.P.P. As well, there was no evidence that he financially supported the party or that he played any significant political role with respect to the party generally or to former Prime Minister Bhutto. It was clear that the Applicant and other members of his family supported the P.P.P., but the Applicant's involvement with the party was actually limited to charity works, attendance at one public rally, and as discussed below, working as one of Ms. Bhutto's security guards.
[6] In 1989, the Applicant retired from his employment with the shipping company in Karachi because of his fear of the crime and ethnic conflict in that city. He expressed particular concern about the ethnic strife amongst the Punjabi, Sindhi and Mahajor peoples. On leaving Karachi, he returned to his home town Lalamusa. Thereafter his evidence indicated that, from time to time, he worked as a "security guard" for Ms. Bhutto, but it seems clear from the transcript of the Board's hearing that he only played this role when Ms. Bhutto was visiting the Lalamusa area.
[7] The Applicant said that, in September or October 1994, five male supporters of the PML invaded his home in Lalamusa and took him hostage (the "Kidnapping"). He testified that they killed his two dogs and forced him to sign a personal cheque for 100,000 Pakistan rupees in favour of one of the kidnappers. He was also forced to sign a letter transferring his car to the PML. After holding him hostage for three days, the kidnappers ran away.
[8] The Applicant said that he went to the local police station to report the incident. There he was told that the kidnappers had also killed a policeman and that the police were confident that the perpetrators would soon be caught. A few days later, the Applicant went to the police station in the regional centre of Gujarat, but was told to make his report in Lalamusa. However, on returning to the Lalamusa police station, he was told by the policemen there that, contrary to their earlier statements, they did not dare confront the PML.
[9] On October 15, 1995, while on an early morning walk, a group of PML men (whom he could identify by name) confronted the Applicant and beat him (the "Beating") because, one year earlier, he had reported the Kidnapping to the police.
[10] The Applicant went to a government hospital, but the doctors refused to treat him out of fear of the PML. He had to obtain private medical treatment. Thereafter, when he tried to report the Beating to the police, he was told that the police could do nothing unless he had a medical report supporting his claim, but he had no medical report because the government hospital had refused to treat him.
[11] On November 1, 1995, men, whom he believed to be PML supporters, fired shots at his house. Later, while he was talking to the local P.P.P. legislative representative at a gathering outside the latter's house, a vehicle with PML gunmen drove up and opened fire. Five P.P.P. workers were killed.
[12] In February 1997, Nawaz Sharif formed a PML government. Because he feared PML supporters with guns who were patrolling the streets in Lalamusa, the Applicant kept his daughter out of school and instead hired a private tutor. Nine months later, on November 12, 1997, the Applicant and his daughter obtained Pakistani passports and, on November 29, 1997, the day after PML supporters attacked the Pakistan Supreme Court, PML gunmen again shot at the Applicant's house and killed another dog.
[13] On December 3, 1997, the Applicant obtained Canadian visas from the Canadian immigration office in Islamabad and, on December 14, 1997, the Applicant and his daughter flew to Toronto. On February 25, 1998, two months later, the Applicant filed Convention refugee claims.
The Board's Decision
[14] The Board determined that the Kidnapping story was implausible. The Board did not believe that kidnappers would accept a personal cheque, payable to one of them, and a transfer letter for the car, as both of these items could be traced back to the kidnappers. The Board indicated that, if the kidnappers had in fact killed a policeman around the time of the Kidnapping, it was implausible that they would let their identities become known.
[15] The Board also did not believe the Applicant's claim about the Beating. The Board said that it was implausible "that any or all of the individuals mentioned in this incident would have, at that time, voluntarily implicated themselves in the kidnapping incident of a year previous by beating the claimant because of his police report".
[16] The Board also concluded that the Applicant had an internal flight alternative ("IFA") in Karachi. It noted that the Applicant had been based in Karachi for many years. When questioned by the Board about the possibility of moving back there, the Applicant testified that he feared the crime and ethnic strife in Karachi. However, he did not state that he feared persecution in Karachi by any specific person or entity for any Convention reason. The Board noted that there was no evidence that the Applicant or his family were any more at risk of persecution than anyone else in the city. The Board also noted that there was no documentary evidence of systematic persecution of P.P.P. members in Karachi. Finally, the Board stated that there was no evidence that people like the Applicant, who has wealth and social standing, were more vulnerable than other residents of in Karachi.
The Issues
[17] At issue were the reasonableness of the Board's conclusions: (i) about the implausibility of the Applicant's Kidnapping and Beating; and (ii) about the Applicant's IFA in Karachi. I will deal with each matter in turn.
(i) The Kidnapping and Beating
[18] The Board concluded that the Kidnapping did not occur because (i) it was implausible that one of the kidnappers would ask for a cheque in his name because this would reveal his identity, and (ii) because the letter transferring the car would also disclose the identity of the transferee. The evidence was clear that one of the kidnappers asked for a personal cheque made out to him. Accordingly, I can find no error in the Board's conclusion about the cheque. If the Board, with its experience in matters of illicit fund raising and extortion found it implausible, I can see no error which would justify this Court's intervention.
[19] With regard to the letter transferring the car, the Applicant submitted that there was no evidence before the Board which indicated that the letter actually named one of the kidnappers, or that there was a requirement that transfer documents name individuals as opposed to corporations or other types of transferees. Accordingly, the Board erred when it concluded that the letter could have been used to identify a kidnapper. However, it is my view that this error is immaterial because the Board's conclusion about the cheque was sufficient to justify its decision about the Kidnapping.
[20] I have also found that the Board erred when it held that the Beating was implausible because those who beat the Applicant would not have wanted to be implicated in the Kidnapping. I do not find it logical that they would have been implicated in the Kidnapping in any legal or meaningful sense just because they knew that the Applicant had reported the Kidnapping to the police. However, the Board's error on this issue is also immaterial because it is clear that the finding was made in the alternative. If, as the Board concluded, the Kidnapping story was implausible, then a Beating motivated by a police report of the Kidnapping was also implausible.
(ii) The IFA
[21] With regard to the internal flight alternative, I have found no reviewable error in the Board's decision. Applicant's counsel asked me to conclude that, when the Applicant spoke of ethnic strife in Karachi, he must be taken to have meant political strife in view of the strong connections between ethnicity and political parties. Yet the Applicant clearly drew distinctions between political and race-based unrest, and he described each at different points in his testimony. In my view, the Board was correct when it concluded that the Applicant did not identify any Convention reasons associated with his fear of general criminal activity and ethnic strife in Karachi. Accordingly, regardless of any errors made by the Board on the subject of the Kidnapping and the Beating, the Applicant had a viable IFA in Karachi.
Conclusion
[22] For all these reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
(Sgd.) "Sandra J. Simpson"
Judge
Vancouver, B.C.
November 7, 2000
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMAD RAFIQ CHAUDHRY
and SANA RAFIQ CHAUDHRY
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
COURT NO.: IMM-695-99
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: October 16, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER: SIMPSON J.
DATED: November 7, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Ian Hamilton Gledhill for Applicants
Mr. W. Brad Hardstaff for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Gledhill, Laroque for Applicants
Edmonton, Alberta
Morris Rosenberg for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario