Date: 20040913
Docket: IMM-4619-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1238
Ottawa, Ontario, this 13th of September, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
SALMAN ALI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Salman Ali came to Canada in 2001 from Pakistan. He says that he was harassed, threatened, kidnapped and beaten by extremist Muslim organizations there. He sought refugee protection from Canada, but a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed his claim. The Board found that his testimony was not credible and that his version of events was implausible. Further, it concluded that Pakistan could have protected him had he stayed there. Mr. Ali argues that the Board erred in its assessment of his claim and asks me to order a new hearing.
[2] I cannot find a basis on which to overturn the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
1. Did the Board misunderstand the basis of Mr. Ali's claim?
2. Did the Board dismiss Mr. Ali's evidence unreasonably?
3. Did the Board ignore Mr. Ali's testimony about a lack of police response to his problems?
II. Analysis
A. Did the Board misunderstand the basis of Mr. Ali's claim?
[3] Mr. Ali argues that the Board seemed to misunderstand the basis of his claim. In its reasons, the Board said that Mr. Ali feared persecution because of his father's profile as a prominent and active member of the Shia Muslim community. Mr. Ali disputes that he based his claim primarily on his father's profile.
[4] Having reviewed the entire record, I cannot conclude that the Board's statement was wrong. Mr. Ali testified that he was targeted by extremist Sunni Muslim organizations because of his political involvement. However, he said that he was probably singled out because his father, a devout Shia Muslim, was well-known in the community.
[5] Further, the Board's reasons make clear that it understood the main elements of Mr. Ali's claim. It referred to the various difficulties he said he encountered with political opponents. It then went on to explain why it did not find Mr. Ali's version of events persuasive. I see no error on the Board's part.
B. Did the Board dismiss Mr. Ali's evidence unreasonably?
[6] The Board gave numerous reasons why it did not accept Mr. Ali's evidence. Mr. Ali stated in his written narrative and in his testimony before the Board that he feared the Sipah-e-Sahaba (or, SSP), yet he did not mention the SSP when he described the basis for his refugee claim at the port of entry to Canada. He only mentioned the Pakistan Muslim League. Mr. Ali said that the immigration officer at the port of entry simply failed to record his full account. The Board did not accept this explanation because there was no evidence that the Pakistan Muslim League, as opposed to the SSP, caused Mr. Ali any problems. In other words, the discrepancy could not be explained by a mere omission.
[7] In his written narrative, Mr. Ali said that "some unknown people" threw acid on him. In his oral testimony, he said that it was one person. The Board used the discrepancy to find that the incident never happened.
[8] Mr. Ali testified that one night, when he was sleeping on the roof, a group of people fired shots into the air and then fled. He said he went to the police the next day between 11:00 a.m. and noon to report this incident. However, the police report said that the complaint was made at 12:40 a.m. The Board decided that it should give the report little weight.
[9] Mr. Ali testified that he had been kidnapped and beaten seriously and repeatedly over a five-day period. He said that he finally escaped when his captors left the door unlocked. The Board rejected his version of events because Mr. Ali could only give a vague description of his captors, could not describe the stick with which he was beaten in any detail, and said that he only suffered minor injuries. The Board also thought it unlikely that the kidnappers would forget to lock the door.
[10] Mr. Ali said that his problems derived from his political profile as a municipal councillor in Rawalpindi. Yet, he could not provide any documentary evidence to support this assertion other than a business card which, the Board noted, could easily have been printed in Canada after his arrival. The Board doubted that Mr. Ali was an elected official in Pakistan.
[11] In the end, the Board concluded that there was no basis for Mr. Ali's claims of political and religious persecution.
[12] I can only overturn the Board's findings of fact if I conclude that they were patently unreasonable, in the sense that they were unsupported by the evidence. However, given that the Board referred to the evidence before it and gave a reasonable explanation for each of its conclusions, I cannot find any basis on which to overturn its decision.
C. Did the Board ignore Mr. Ali's testimony about a lack of police response to his problems?
[13] Mr. Ali argues that when the Board found that Pakistan was in a position to protect its Shia minority population, it failed to consider the fact that he had unsuccessfully sought police assistance twice.
[14] The Board clearly referred to one of the police reports, as discussed above. It found that the incident underlying the report did not happen. Similarly, the Board found that the alleged acid-throwing event, which Mr. Ali claims to have reported to the police, did not occur.
[15] In the circumstances, I do not believe the Board had a duty to mention specifically Mr. Ali's claim to have gone to the police. It went on to give a thorough assessment of the relevant documentary evidence relating to Pakistan's ability to protect Shias. It concluded that Pakistan is making serious efforts to provide adequate protection. I see no basis for overturning its finding.
[16] Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
F.C.J.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4619-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SALMAN ALI v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY J.
DATED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Peter Wuebbolt FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Mielka Visnic FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
PETER WUEBBOLT
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT