Date: 19990630
Docket: IMM-2940-98
OTTAWA, Ontario, the 30th day of June 1999
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau
Between:
THOMAS GOMES MASTER
MARIA GOMES MASTER
Applicants
And:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
ORDER
[1] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
P. ROULEAU
JUDGE
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19990630
Docket: IMM-2940-98
Between:
THOMAS GOMES MASTER
MARIA GOMES MASTER
Applicants
And:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board), dated April 27, 1998, which determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
[2] The applicants seek an order setting aside the Board"s decision and referring the matter back for a redetermination by a new panel.
[3] Thomas Gomes Master and his wife, Maria Gomes Master, are citizens of Bangladesh. They claim a fear of persecution in their country by reason of their religion as Christians.
[4] From 1978 to 1996, the applicant worked as an accountant in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (UAE), returning to Bangladesh only for holidays. During this period, his wife and their four children lived in Dhaka, Bangladesh. In his PIF, the applicant claims that he and his family were persecuted by reason of their religion. In fact, it is alleged that he and his family suffered extortion and were threatened by the police and goons for three political parties which were in power one after the other: the Jatiya Party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Awami League. They also suffered extortion by strongarm men for the Islamic party Jamaat-e-Islami.
[5] The applicant retired in June 1996 and returned to his country. He stated that his life and security were in danger because of his wealth and his involvement in the Christian community. Because of thefts, vandalism and extortion, he lost the business he opened with his son in December 1996.
[6] The applicant claimed that the local representatives of the Jamaat-e-Islami and BNP asked him to sell his house in Dhaka to them for a nominal price. When he refused, they threatened him. On February 14, 1997, a group of thugs went to his house. They told him to sell his house to their leaders at the price they offered or they would kill him. The thugs then ransacked the house and took money and valuables.
[7] After this incident, the applicant and his family left for their country house. After obtaining American visas, the couple left for the United States on February 26, 1997. They stayed there for two and a half months, then came to Canada and claimed refugee status. Two of their children were granted refugee status in Canada in 1995; the other two remain in Bangladesh.
[8] The Board rejected the applicants" claim. First, it was not persuaded that the problems the applicants faced were related to a ground set out in the Convention. It considered that the applicants were targeted because of their wealth, not because of their religion. Their problems in Bangladesh were limited to extortion and burglary by bandits. Extortion is common in Bangladesh. The applicant testified that all of those who worked abroad and other wealthy people have the same problems.
[9] The Board found several contradictions in the applicants" testimony. First, while the applicant wrote in his PIF that he suffered extortion by the police, at the hearing he only mentioned the persecution by the goons for the four political parties. Even in response to questions by his counsel, the applicant confirmed that he did not file a complaint with the police because they would have asked him for money. His wife stated that she had never gone to the police because she feared retaliation by thugs.
[10] At the hearing, the applicant testified that he and his family were targeted by thugs because of their wealth and his involvement in the Christian community. He stated that the Christian community has no voice in Bangladesh. The applicant conceded, however, that his community was free to practise its religion, had a cemetery, a community hall and a Sunday school. He had married, his children were baptized and the family went to church every Sunday in Bangladesh without encountering any difficulties.
[11] Furthermore, the Board felt that the applicants" behaviour was not consistent with that of a person who fears persecution. The applicant worked in the UAE for 18 years. His wife and children never joined him. First, he said that his wife did not have a residence permit. The Board found a residence permit for the UAE in the female applicant"s passport. The applicant then admitted that she could have joined him, but that she did not do so because she had to look after the children and their property.
[12] The applicant also travelled to the United States three times, namely in 1993, 1995 and 1997. He never claimed refugee status. His wife accompanied him in 1993 and 1997. She had a visa to go with him in 1995, but allegedly stayed in Bangladesh to look after the children and the house. However, in 1995, the youngest child was 19 years old. He left Bangladesh that same year with his sister to come to Canada.
[13] Finally, the documentary evidence does not corroborate the claim that Christians are persecuted because of their religion in Bangladesh. There are certainly problems from time to time between Muslims and members of religious minorities, especially Hindus. In general, however, the members of religious minorities can live, work and practise their religion with few difficulties.
[14] The Board determined that the applicants did not discharge the burden of proving that there was a reasonable chance of persecution if they were to return to Bangladesh. Their application was accordingly dismissed.
[15] At the hearing, the applicant dealt with only two of the five arguments raised in his memorandum. They are:
| 1. Did the Board interpret the documentary evidence in a clearly unreasonable manner? |
| 2. Did the Board err in finding that the applicants were not targeted because of their religion? |
[16] Based on the documentary evidence, the Board found that the applicants did not have an objective fear of persecution in Bangladesh by reason of their Christian religion. According to the applicants, this finding is unreasonable and has no basis in the evidence. In support of their position, they quote an excerpt from a document from the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor:
| The dominance in Bangladesh of Islam (constitutionally declared the state religion), can place members of minority religious groups, such as Hindus, Christians and Buddhists at a disadvantage, both socially and economically. They are also sometimes the object of communal violence. |
[17] However, a complete reading of the document reveals the following:
| Nevertheless, the minority religious communities in Bangladesh have generally been able to live and worship with relatively few difficulties. There are occasional reports of violence directed against religious minorities, for example against Christians during the Persian Gulf War and against Hindus following communal conflicts in India in late 1992 and early 1993. But in both instances the government moved quickly to contain these outbreaks. Islamic fundamentalism is not an important force in Bangladesh, partially because Bangladesh"s political history has associated fundamentalists with the anti-independence movement. |
[18] Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the Board misinterpreted this document.
[19] The Board also relied on this excerpt from the Country Profile: Bangladesh from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:
| . . . while there is in general tolerance of Hindu, Buddhist and Christian minorities, they are often socially restricted . . . . However, it is unlikely that any individual Hindu now in Australia could claim that they would face inevitable persecution if they returned to Bangladesh. |
It concluded:
| [TRANSLATION] |
| The last sentence applies even more to Christians, because the number of incidents against this community reported in the documentary evidence is infinitely smaller than the number of incidents against Hindus. |
[20] In other words, the Board inferred from this sentence that if Hindus, who are more harassed by Muslims than Christians are, do not have a well-founded fear of persecution, Christians need not fear persecution either.
[21] According to the applicants, the Board misconstrued and added to the evidence. The passage refers to Hindus, not Christians. The Board"s inference is ill founded: Hindus are the victims of more incidents than Christians simply because there are more Hindus than Christians in Bangladesh.
[22] In my view, the Board"s conclusion is not unreasonable. In any event, although it is accepted that the number of incidents is necessarily proportional to the number of members of a religion, the fact remains that in the absence of an objective, reasonable fear of persecution, the Board"s conclusion is well-founded on the other pieces of documentary evidence mentioned in its reasons.
[23] The applicants claim that the Board erred in determining they were not targeted because of their religion. The applicant testified at the hearing and wrote in his PIF that he was persecuted by reason of his religion.
[24] It is the applicants" responsibility to establish a link between their fear of persecution and one of the five grounds set out in the Convention.1 The existence of a nexus between the fear of persecution and the grounds set out in the Convention is a question of fact which lies with the Board. As Jerome A.C.J. said in Leon v. Canada (M.C.I.) (September 19, 1995) IMM-3520-94:
| I am also satisfied that the Refugee Division reasonably and properly concluded that the applicants' story, even if true, did not disclose a nexus to any ground set out in the Convention refugee definition. A determination with respect to "nexus" is largely a question of fact and therefore entirely within the tribunal's expertise to make. |
[25] It is for the Board to examine all of the evidence and to draw inferences therefrom. The intervention of this Court is not warranted unless the conclusion reached appears to be capricious or unreasonable.2
[26] In the instant case, the documentary evidence established that members of religious minorities can live and practise their religion without much difficulty. The applicant testified that he never had any problem getting married, going to church or having his children baptized. The Board states that extortion is common in Bangladesh, and all wealthy people, without distinction as to religion, seem to be targeted. The applicant did not identify any piece of evidence which contradicts this statement. At the hearing before the Board, he even admitted that extortion is a serious problem in Bangladesh. He added that most people who work abroad have had similar problems. Criminals imagine that these people have money and go after them. His wife testified that thugs harassed because of jealousy over her husband"s income. I am accordingly of the view that the Board"s decision is reasonable and is based on the evidence before it.
[27] The application is dismissed.
P. ROULEAU
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
June 30, 1999
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-2940-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: THOMAS GOMES MASTER et al. v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 22, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER OF ROULEAU J.
DATED JUNE 30, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Michel Le Brun
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Odette Bouchard
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Le Brun
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Odette Bouchard
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________1 Rizkallah v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 156 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.).
2 Sagharichi v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.).