Date: 19981030
Docket: IMM-130-98
BETWEEN:
ZAFAR IQBAL SABIR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
CAMPBELL J.
[1] In its decision of December 23, 1997, the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (CRDD) found the applicant not to be a Convention refugee on the basis that, even though it was proven that there is more than a reasonable possibility that he would face persecution if he were to return to Dandi or Lahore, Pakistan, such would not be the case if he were to live in Karachi. The applicant argues that this finding is made without regard to the evidence on the tribunal record, and is, therefore, made in reviewable error.
[2] The CRDD"s finding that Karachi provides an internal flight alternative (IFA) to the applicant obviously depends upon accurate knowledge of the political situation in Pakistan generally, and Karachi specifically. In this respect, since the onus of proof rests on a refugee claimant to show that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Pakistan, including Karachi which is the area which is alleged to afford an IFA,1 the tribunal record contains some 234 information documents filed by the applicant"s counsel, Mr. Birginder P.S. Mangat. Mr. Mangat"s main argument is that the IFA decision is made without regard to this evidence.2
[3] The CRDD"s brief decision, as quoted in its entirety below, does not cite any documentary evidence to support the IFA conclusion reached, with the exception of one document which is found to prove that there is freedom of movement in Pakistan. It is not difficult to understand how this fact would give rise to a concern that the CRDD did not consider the information filed. While on principle I can assume that in good faith the CRDD considered the evidence produced, in the absence of references or any analysis to show how the contentious conclusion was reached, I am left with the few words of the conclusion itself to determine whether, in fact, it is based on an erroneous finding of fact made without regard for the evidence.
| [4] The entire CRDD decision is as follows: Zafar Iqbal SABIR (the claimant) is a 37-year-old taxi driver from Pakistan who claims Convention refugee status because of his political opinion. |
| ALLEGATIONS |
| The claimant began doing volunteer work for the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) in 1990. In 1993 he worked for the PPP candidate in his local riding and began getting threats from the Pakistan Muslim League (PML). In 1994, the claimant was stopped by PML gangsters who tried to convince him to join the PML. He was slapped, kicked and threatened. A bus which the claimant rented to take people to a PPP gathering in Lalamusa was stopped by PML gangsters in September 1995, shots were fired into the air and the bus returned home. The claimant began getting threats continuously. He was threatened by the PML candidate for the National Assembly who sent a message to the claimant indicating that he should join the PML otherwise he would be killed. The claimant was told in October 1996 that he had one more chance to join the PML. Fearful that the PPP would be defeated, the claimant fled Pakistan. |
| ISSUE |
| Does the claimant have a viable Internal Flight Alternative? |
| DETERMINATION |
| The Refugee Division determines that the claimant is not a Convention refugee for the following reasons. The claimant can safely relocate to Karachi and it is reasonable for him to do so under the circumstances of this case. |
| ANALYSIS |
| The panel noted that the claimant has a low profile as an active member of the PPP, and that he has never held any office in that party. The claimant fears persecution from the PML gangsters who have variously [sic] caused harm to him from the time he began his volunteer work with the PPP in Dandi. The claimant fears persecution from the PML gangsters under the direction of Mansoor Shah, who was elected to Parliament as the local member in the recent elections. The PML was also elected in the claimant"s provincial constituency. The panel concluded that, given the positions of power now held by the PML in the claimant"s local area, there is more than a mere possibility that he would face persecution were he now to return to Dandi where he was politically active, or to Lahore where he worked as a taxi driver. |
| The panel concluded that the risk of persecution to the claimant at the hands of the gangsters of Mansoor Shah is of a localized nature. No evidence was adduced which indicates that Shah"s influence extends beyond his local electoral district, or that his gangsters roam at will causing harm to individuals with a low political profile, such as the claimant, outside his immediate area. The panel noted the claimant"s low political profile and concluded that there is no reasonable chance that Mansoor Shah would engage his gangsters to cause harm to the claimant were he to relocate to Karachi. |
The claimant indicated in his testimony that he fears the police in Karachi. The panel noted that there are no allegations that charges are outstanding against the claimant in Pakistan. The panel therefore concluded that there is no reasonable chance the claimant would face persecution at the hands of the police were he to relocate to Karachi.
The United States Department of State Reports on Human Practices indicates that there is freedom of movement in Pakistan [Exhibit R-1(3), item 1.1, at page 19]. The claimant acknowledged in his testimony that Punjabis live in Sindh.
The claimant worked for many years as a taxi driver in Lahore and, in the panel"s view, there are no barriers to prevent him from doing so in Karachi. He has a moderate knowledge of Urdu. The panel concludes that, in the particular circumstances of this claimant, it is reasonable for him to relocate to Karachi.
The panel acknowledges that violence is endemic in Karachi but also notes that violence is endemic throughout Pakistan.
For these reasons the panel finds Zafar Iqbal Sabir not to be a Convention refugee.
[5] An important conclusion reached by the CRDD is that the applicant has a low profile as an active member of the PPP in his home community of Dandi. While the transcript of the evidence that the applicant gave in the hearing before the CRDD establishes that one of his principal duties was to canvass local community members and extol the benefits of the PPP, it is important to note that in the applicant's own estimation he had a high profile as evidenced by his following statement:
...
The opposition party was jealous that why this work is being done because they do not want the poor people, they should get some education and they should learn about -- they should get education and become learned people. And for this reason I had become very famous in my area of being active worker. And for this reason the gangsters of Muslim League were against me. And all these problems and difficulties are -- that face were because of that.3
[6] On the basis of this evidence, I agree with the applicant's argument that it is correct to characterize the applicant as a political "activist". Therefore, I find that the CRDD"s characterization of the applicant is contrary to the evidence.
[7] The CRDD"s finding that "the claimant worked for many years as a taxi driver in Lahore and, in the panel"s view, there are no barriers to prevent him from doing so in Karachi" creates the image that the applicant will simply dissolve into Karachi"s population and will, therefore, become invisible to the agents of his political persecution.
[8] Counsel for the applicant correctly argues that the applicant cannot be assumed to end his political activities or shed his political profile just because of a move to Karachi. In my opinion, in the absence of evidence from the applicant that he intends to change his political activities, the CRDD should have assessed the probability of persecution in Karachi on the basis of the ground proved, being political persecution as an activist for the PPP.
[9] The CRDD made no reference to the extensive compilation of documents supplied by the applicant to prove the prevailing political persecution in Pakistan, and in particular Karachi, within which there is ample credible evidence to prove that in 1997 there was persecution of PPP party members and activists in Karachi.4 For the CRDD to decide as it did, without comment on this evidence, risks a finding that the decision was, in fact, reached without regard to this evidence. Indeed, given the credible nature of the evidence, and the cursory treatment that this issue received in the decision, I make this finding.
[10] Prior to the hearing before the CRDD, the prescreening of the applicant's case identified an IFA as an issue, while the applicant's ethnicity was not similarly identified. However, when the CRDD focussed on Karachi as the applicant's potential IFA, the applicant argued that it was not available on grounds of both political and ethnic persecution. In this respect, the applicant's counsel's argument before the CRDD was as follows:
| The claimant is -- the Panel is an expert in this regard, they have dealt with so many cases from MPM and they are aware of the nature of ethnic violence in Karachi. |
| Mohajs have been committing violence against other ethnic groups in Karachi and that's why for the last five years operation cleanup is continuing and the presence of army is there. |
Sir, it's my submission, sir, that there is no reasonable IFA in Karachi and Sindh. Claimant has given a thought to it and has rejected IFA.5
[11] To support his argument, Mr. Mangat referred to documentary information which establishes that there is ethnic persecution in Karachi which would probably impact on the applicant if he were to locate there.6
[12] There is no mention in the CRDD's decision of the ethnic persecution issue. Since Karachi was identified by the CRDD as a potential IFA, and since the applicant, in response, raised ethnic persecution, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to a finding on this important point. I find that to not provide it is an error.
[13] In my opinion, the errors identified constitute reviewable error, and, accordingly, I set the decision of the CRDD aside and refer this matter to a differently constituted panel for redetermination. However, in this respect, I direct that the redetermination be on the basis of the record produced in the hearing under review, and that the uncontested finding of the CRDD that "there is more than a mere possibility that [the applicant] would face persecution were he now to return to Dandi where he was politically active, or to Lahore where he worked as a taxi driver"7 be accepted as an established fact. Therefore, I direct that the focus of the redetermination be on Karachi as an IFA on both the grounds of political persecution and persecution on the basis of ethnicity.
Judge
OTTAWA, Ontario
__________________1 Rasaratnam v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (F.C.A.) and Thirunavukkarasu v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A.).
2 During the hearing, Mr. Mangat advised that, given the large number of Convention refugee cases arising from Pakistan at the time the CRDD made its decision, in order to prove country conditions in each in an efficient manner, his practice was to file an original copy of the information material with the CRDD to be used in all cases, and then in each case to file an index referring to this material. This practice was accepted by the CRDD in this case. The index in this case appears at page 31 of the Tribunal Record.
3 Tribunal Record, p.252.
4 The documents cited in the index filed with the CRDD and contained in the Applicant"s Record at the noted pages are as follows: "PPP report flays PML govt for "poor" performance", Document 2.53, p.39; "Opposition stages walkout against Manzhar"s abduction", Document 2.39, p.45; "Four killed in Karachi violence", Document 2.16, p.59; "Police arrest over 300 political activists", Document 2.15, p.60; "Over 500 arrested in city crackdown", Document 2.13, p.65; "Karachi: 400 more held as crackdown continues", Document 2.10, p.67; "Pakistan: law and order concerns must not override citizen"s fundamental rights", Document 7.33, p.85.
5 Tribunal Record, p. 280.
6 "PPP report flays PML govt for poor performance", Document 2.53, Applicant"s Record, p.39; "President asked to proclaim emergency", Document 7.25, Applicant"s Record, p.78.
7 Tribunal Record, p. 5.