Date: 20001002
Docket: IMM-4712-99
BETWEEN:
JUNAID ALTAF
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM, J:
[1] The applicant challenges by way of judicial review the decision, dated September 8, 1999, made by the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD), in which it was determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act.1 Leave to commence this application for judicial review was granted on June 29, 2000.
Background
[2] The applicant, Junaid Altaf, is a 21 year old citizen of Pakistan. He arrived in Canada on August 3, 1998.2 The applicant alleged a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion and membership in a particular social group, viz., his family. The applicant's parents are high profile members of the Muslim Conference, a political party. The applicant's mother was an elected member of the Legislative Assembly in Azad Kashmir from 1991 to 1996; the applicant's father was the president of the Muslim Conference and also ran in elections.
[3] The applicant stated that as a college student he joined his college's Muslim Student Federation in 1994 and soon became president.
[4] Following the June 1996 elections, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) assumed power. The applicant claims that this led to a strong wave of discrimination against the Muslim Students Federation members; they were not allowed to participate in any educational or cultural activities. The applicant was expelled from his college in September 1996.
[5] The applicant stated in his written submissions that his father organized a rally on October 24, 1997. According to the applicant, the police attacked the rally's participants, and they arrested his father and senior members of the Muslim Conference. The next day, the applicant, along with other students and Muslim Conference members, staged a protest against the arrest of the applicant's father and called for his immediate release. The applicant stated that he and some others were arrested and detained for two days. During the detention, he was kept hungry and harassed; he claims that the police threatened to arrest and torture him if he participated in any future protests or worked for the Muslim Students Federation.
[6] However, after being released from jail, the applicant participated in another protest for the release of the Muslim Conference leaders. The applicant stated that they were attacked by Islamic Jamate Students and the Pakistan Peoples Student Federation. The applicant stated that he received fractures in three places on both arms, and was in plaster casts for four months. The applicant also stated that the fractures were caused by the police. This, I believe, is a very serious contradiction going to the applicant's credibility.
[7] The applicant's father was released from jail sometime in November 1997, but continued to be threatened and harassed by opponent leader Akhtar Rabbani.
[8] The applicant sought to be re-admitted to his college in February 1998, but was denied admission.
[9] The applicant claims that in the evening of April 11, 1998, he and a friend were on their way home when they were kidnapped by men in two vehicles. They later learned that the men were from the Jamat-e-Islamic Group. They were taken to a place called Training Camp Gora, where they were forced to train in weapons and arsenals. The applicant claims that they were kept at the camp for about one week, before they were able to escape.
[10] On May 21, 1998, the applicant states that two of his friends, who were active members of the Muslim Conference, were beaten by members of the Jamat-e-Islamic Group. Their hands and legs were broken, and they were hospitalized. The applicant began to fear for his safety and he went into hiding in the first week of July 1998. His father made arrangements with an agent for him to leave the country for Canada.
[11] The applicant claims to fear the PPP, Jamat-e-Islamic, mujahadeen, other fundamentalist groups, and the police.
[12] A hearing was held before a single member panel of the CRDD in Calgary on September 8, 1999. At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel rendered its decision orally. The panel concluded that the applicant was not a Convention refugee as he has an internal flight alternative (IFA) outside of his home in Azad Kashmir in Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, or any other large urban area.
[13] During the course of the hearing, the applicant claimed that an IFA was not available for him due to his parents' prominent political roles, as well as his own role in the student branch of the Muslim Conference. The panel rejected this as not credible or plausible and held,
| You are a very young man, who has little political profile of your own outside of your own college. You allege you fear the Muslim Conference's enemies but there is little before me to indicate why a major political party would seek you out outside of your home area. Your activities were tied to those of your father who, although much more active and prominent than his son, continues to live in the home area. You have alleged that you were active with the student organization but your activities as a young student do not appear to be such that they would bring you to the attention of opposing parties outside your home area. |
| More significantly, however, you alleged a fear of the Islamic groups, especially being again forcibly recruited by the Jamat-e-Islami, as you allege happened to you in 1998, to fight for Jehad against India. I did not find your account of being abducted by this group to be credible as your allegation that the Jamat-e-Islami forcibly recruit young men is not supported by documentary evidence, which, in fact, says the opposite--that there are enough volunteers for the war to make forcible recruitment unnecessary. While I appreciate counsel's information regarding the pervasiveness of the Islamic groups supporting Jehad throughout Pakistan, there is no corroboration for your allegation that you are in danger of being recruited against your will, either in Azad Kashmir or in other provinces. The documents and news articles in fact seem to indicate a large and apparently enthusiastic response to the Islamic groups' calls for Jehad. |
| By leaving Azad Kashmir and relocating elsewhere, you would no longer face potential problems with these groups who may know you in Azad Kashmir because of your father or your own role with the student organization. As there is no evidence before me that these groups forcibly recruit men at random outside Azad Kashmir for Jehad, it is no more than mere speculation on your part that you would be in danger of being forced to participate in Jehad against your will in Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi or other large urban areas. By relocating to one of these areas, you would in fact take yourself out of harm's way. I therefore find that there is no more than a mere possibility you would suffer persecution in any part of Pakistan outside Azad Kashmir.3 |
[14] The panel noted that there was no legal impediment to the applicant relocating and referred to documentary evidence in support of that conclusion.4 The panel also noted that the applicant is a young man who is well educated; he has no dependants, but has a large family in Pakistan to turn to for financial assistance, and he speaks Urdu, Pakistan's main language.
Applicant's Position
[15] The applicant contends that the panel erred in finding that an IFA was available. The applicant submits that the panel did not consider the circumstances particular to the applicant's case. The applicant contends that the panel failed to consider the documentary evidence relating to country conditions in the proposed IFA. The applicant also argues that the panel failed to consider persons similarly situated to him, namely his two friends who were abducted and beaten. Finally, the applicant takes issue with the panel's conclusions regarding the well-foundedness of his fear of persecution and the evidence he tendered in support.
Respondent's Position
[16] The respondent maintains that the CRDD did not err in finding that the applicant's fear of being forcibly recruited by Islamic groups for the purposes of Jehad against India was not well-founded; documentary evidence indicated, to the contrary, that such groups had plenty of volunteers and that forcible recruitment was not necessary.
[17] The respondent submits that the fact that the CRDD did not mention documents relating to country conditions does not mean that it did not consider them. Furthermore, the applicant does not point to any specific documents that were ignored and that would undermine the panel's decision.
[18] The respondent submits that the panel did not err by not considering evidence of persons similarly situated as that evidence relates to two friends of the applicant who were beaten in Azad Kashmir; therefore, such evidence is not relevant for consideration of an IFA.
[19] The respondent argues that the letters from the applicant's family and party members, various news articles, and affidavit of his uncle, which the applicant contends that the panel failed to consider, do not provide independent objective evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution in the proposed IFA.
Discussion
[20] The main issue to be decided in this application for judicial review is whether the CRDD erred in concluding that the applicant has an IFA available.
[21] In Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (M.E.I.), Linden J.A. had this to say about internal flight alternatives,
| It should first be emphasized that the notion of an internal flight alternative (IFA) is not a legal defence. Neither is it a legal doctrine. It merely is a convenient, short-hand way of describing a fact situation in which a person may be in danger of persecution in one part of a country but not in another. The idea of an internal flight alternative is "inherent" in the definition of a Convention refugee (see Mahoney J.A. in Rasaratnam [[1992] 1 F.C. 706 at 710]); it is not something separate at all. That definition requires that the claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution which renders them unable or unwilling to return to their home country. If claimants are able to seek safe refuge within their own country, there is no basis for finding that they are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. As Mahoney J.A. stated in Rasaratnam, supra, at page 710: |
| [T]he Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists. |
| Mr. Justice Mahoney continued, at page 710: |
| [S]ince by definition a Convention refugee must be a refugee from a country, not from some subdivision or region of a country, a claimant cannot be a Convention refugee if there is an IFA. It follows that the determination of whether or not there is an IFA is integral to the determination whether or not a claimant is a Convention refugee. I see no justification for departing from the norms established by the legislation and jurisprudence and treating an IFA question as though it were a cessation of or exclusion from Convention refugee status.5 |
[22] Mr. Justice Linden noted that the onus of proof rests on the claimant to show on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the entire country. The issue of an IFA is merely one component of the final or main issue to be decided, which is whether the claimant is a Convention refugee. Clearly, the Minister does not bear the onus, as was incorrectly put forth by the applicant in his memorandum of argument.
[23] The Minister or the panel, however, do have the obligation to warn a claimant that the IFA issue will be raised. In the case at bar, the applicant does not contend that he was not given fair warning that the IFA issue would be raised. Indeed, the hearing transcript reveals that the panel noted at the outset that it was particularly interested in that issue.6
[24] With regard to the test for an IFA, Mahoney J.A. articulated it thus in Rasaratnam,
| In my opinion, in finding the IFA, the Board was required to be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there was no serious possibility of the appellant being persecuted in Colombo and that, in all the circumstances including circumstances particular to him, conditions in Colombo were such that it would not be unreasonable for the applicant to seek refuge there.7 |
[25] The test, then, is flexible, taking into account the individual claimant's personal circumstances, as well as those of the country from which he or she fled. The test is objective, and the claimant bears the onus of proof on this issue. In Thirunavukkarasu, Linden J.A. posed the test in the following manner: Would it be unduly harsh to expect this person, who is being persecuted in one part of his country, to move to another less hostile part of the country before seeking refugee status abroad?8 Furthermore, the IFA cannot be speculative; it must be a realistic, viable, and attainable option.
[26] In the present application, the panel found that the applicant has an IFA in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, and other large urban areas outside of Azad Kashmir. The panel noted that documentary evidence, in its opinion, showed that the applicant faced no legal impediments to relocating. The panel also took into account the applicant's personal circumstances: it noted that he is young, has no dependants, is well educated, speaks Urdu and has a large family in Pakistan, from which he may be able to seek financial support. For his part, the applicant merely stated at the hearing that relocation is not possible for him and that he is not safe anywhere in Pakistan, but did not offer specific evidence to support what was really speculation, or an unsupported contention.
[27] In conclusion, the CRDD did not err in finding that the applicant has an internal flight alternative outside of his home province, Azad Kashmir. Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed, the applicant having failed to show a reviewable error on the part of the CRDD.
[28] No question was submitted for certification.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.C.
Calgary, Alberta
October 2, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20001002
Docket: IMM-4712-99
BETWEEN:
JUNAID ALTAF
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 [hereinafter the Act].
2Note that in the CRDD's reasons, the panel incorrectly states that the date of the applicant's arrival in Canada is July 3, 1998.
3Applicant's Application Record, pp. 8-9.
4Exhibit R-2, Question and Answer Series, Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas , pp. 16-17.
5[1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A.) at para. 2.
6Certified Tribunal Record, p. 396.