Date: 20010919
Docket: IMM-5362-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1028
Between:
ASIM RAZA
Applicant(s)
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review with respect to the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) rendered on September 15, 2000 determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicant is a 29-year-old citizen of Pakistan who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution due to an imputed political opinion.
[3] The Board determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee due to a lack of credibility. It is trite law to state that a reviewing court should not interfere with the credibility findings of a Board, provided that the decisions were properly founded on the evidence: Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 at 316, Décary J. (F.C.A.). In the present matter, I am of the view that the Board's decision was not properly founded on the evidence before it.
[4] The Board based its finding of credibility largely on the determination that the PPP November 1999 meeting, which, in the Board's own words, was central to the applicant's allegation of persecution, had not occurred. On this, it states:
When initially testifying about the event, claimant indicated that it was a PPP sponsored event. That party members as well as neighbours in the village attended and, as a result of this, the event was disrupted by the authorities. . . . However, the panel confronted the claimant with exhibit A-8, . . . It is quoted that:
"In mid March 2000, Syed Khurshid Ahmed Shah, deputy opposition leader in the suspended National Assembly, stated that the PPP had not yet decided whether to launch a protest movement against the military regime (NNI 20 March 2000). The PPP central committee is the only body within the party able to issue such a call for a protest movement..."
When confronted on this issue, the claimant attempted to adjust his earlier testimony to state that the November meeting was a local event and that it was not open to the public. The panel does not believe claimant, and absent to any documentation to the contrary, does not believe that such an event occurred and that claimant would be wanted by the authorities as he alleges. Further, as a result of that, the panel does not give any weight to exhibit (sic) P-13 and P-14.
[5] Upon reading the transcript, I am convinced that the Board fundamentally misunderstood the applicant's evidence on this point. The "earlier testimony" to which the Board refers in the above excerpt, relating to the November 1999 meeting, reads as follows:
A. 20th of November, we have... we have a small walled area, there we can hold such a meeting, that is where...
[. . .]
Q. Was this PPP party sponsored the activity in other words is this the... a PPP activity?
A. Yes, it was a party meeting.
Q. How many people were involved or participants?
A. Party workers, there were people who are from the area or were neighbours, about 100 of them were present as well.
[. . .]
Q. It is an exterior compound, but it is walled?
A. Yes, it is a walled area, which... which is owned by one of the party workers in the neighbourhood.
Q. Okay. And what is going on there?
A. A sort of a stage for the meetings, party persons are present and the other office bearers, workers were present. The (inaudible) made speeches, people expressed their views and the object was to take into confidence those who were present. . . . And talk to them about the... the changes that had taken place in the country practically and emphasize to those who were present that we should keep on working for the (inaudible) in the country.
[6] The applicant speaks of a "party meeting", not a demonstration and certainly not a "protest movement" such as that referred to in exhibit A-8. This party meeting, he stated, was held in a privately owned, enclosed courtyard of some sort, not a public place. As can be seen from the later explanation offered by the applicant when confronted with the A-8 document, there is no visible contradiction from his earlier statement:
A. What the top leadership has talked about concerns public agitation, bring the people onto the street. It does not include the party workers, our meetings of the party workers in the area and the fact that they have to be told, brought into confidence about changes in the government, meetings... meetings of that nature took place on a smaller scale in the local areas because these were meetings which were peaceful and had such an objective to them.
[. . .]
A. However, but that time, we had no instruction as to if we were not to hold any... any demonstrations against the army. All we were told were not to come out in public.
Q. But you had a public meeting, Sir?
A. It was not on the road, it was not in the public, it was within the walls, within four walls.
Q. But you said there were party members and other people of the neighbourhood that came, that sounds like the meeting was opened to the public?
A. We cannot force who have just come over to listen to... we cannot tell them to get out. It is a walled area and the neighbours can come over and then there are neighbours and you have to respect them.
[7] He again states that this was a meeting, not a demonstration. He also reiterates that although it was open to the public, it was not held in public. As a result, I am of the opinion that the Board blatantly and manifestly erred in concluding that the applicant had contradicted himself and in rejecting his testimony on that basis. This first error led the Board to commit a second error in rejecting two documents submitted by the applicant, namely, P-13 and P-14.
[8] The Board committed a second error in rejecting the applicant's testimony with respect to his political involvement and in concluding as it did that:
With respect to his involvement in the PPP, the claimant stated that one of his roles was to organize and give speeches. However, again the claimant despite repeated questions from both his counsel and the panel member was unable to provide any detailed examples.
[9] It is evident, upon reading the numerous pages of the transcript on that specific question, that the applicant did in fact provide extensive and detailed descriptions of his various duties amidst both the Pakistan Student Federation and the PPP. Contrary to the Board's contention, the applicant even provided the following details of his PPP speech at the November 1999 meeting:
Q. Do you have... did you have a specific message? I mean what were you... you said you gave speeches, what was the speech?
A. Well, this is how I... this is what I said. I said greetings to those who were present that we cannot afford to have army in power in the country because army does not work for the betterment of the country in any... in any society. Therefore, we need to go back to democratic process and election should be called and I appeal to the youth of the party that they should come forward for the platform of the party. We should... we should express our solidarity and demand that democracy be restored because dictatorship or army government is not... does not held out the people.
Q. How long was your speech for?
A. For three minutes. In that meantime, slogans were raised by its president, so we... allowing for that, it would be about three, four minutes.
[10] In light of the applicant's detailed description of this particular event, it is wholly erroneous, in my view, for the Board to have concluded that the applicant could not provide any detailed examples of speeches he had held and to have rejected the applicant's testimony with respect to his political involvement on that basis.
[11] These errors were of sufficient importance as to negate the Board's entire decision. Consequently, the application for judicial review is allowed, the Board's decision is set aside and the matter is remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted panel.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 19, 2001