Date: 19990128 Docket: IMM-2346-98
BETWEEN:
AMIRUL ISLAM
Applicant
AND
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Board rejecting the applicant's claim to Convention Refugee status on April 29, 1998. The applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision and referring the matter back to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.
[2] The applicant was a member of Bangladesh National Party (BNP) since 1992 and a member of the Assamese ethnic minority. He arrived in Canada in October of 1996 and claimed refugee status both on the basis of ethnic origin and political opinion.
[3] The Bangaldesh National Party came to power in 1991. In November 1995, it dissolved Parliament and called for elections. It was re-elected in February 1996. However, BNP Prime Minister Zia stepped down on March 30, 1996 due to allegations of election
Page: 2 wrongdoing. The Awami League (AL), a rival political party, came to power during the same year.
[4] The applicant joined the BNP in 1992 because he liked their position on human rights and he believed that they were enhancing the development of the country. In 1993, he became the Publicity Secretary of the BNP for the Moulvi Bazar area Thana Committee.
[5] He was attached by Awami supporters as early as 1993; in 1994 as part of anti BNP rally goons again attacked his group.
[6] On November 22, 1995, his home was attacked by AL goons. The applicant was not home at that time, so he was not hurt. After the incident, he hid in the house of a friend in Rajnagar. The applicant returned home on March 30, 1996. On May 20, 1996, he was attached by a group of AL goons. He was admitted to a clinic where he received treatment for a week. In July of 1996 the same group ransacked his store. His home was attacked again by the same group on August 15, 1996. The applicant was able to escape. The next day, he heard that the goons were looking for him and intended to kill him and rape his wife. The applicant and his family went into hiding in Srimangal. When he learned that the goons were still looking for him, the applicant decided to leave the country.
[7] Before the Board, the applicant alleged that BNP workers are still being persecuted by the AL, which is now in power in Bangaldesh. He risks imprisonment without a fair trial or
Page: 3
being killed because of his political affiliation if he returns to his country. The applicant also asserted that he was discriminated against in Bangaldesh because he is a member of the Assamese minority.
The issues in this matter are as follows:
1. Was the applicant's testimony severely distorted by the Board?
2. Did the Board err in basing its decision without regard to the entirety of the evidence before it, and by ignoring the evidence specific to the applicant? 3. Was the applicant denied natural justice by not being disclosed articles which were quoted in the reasons of the Board?
4. Was the applicant's testimony in relation to the November 1995 events misinterpreted by the translator?
[9] It is apparent that though the Board found this applicant not to be credible, they have not satisfied the Court that the analysis of his personal situation and his fear of returning to Bangaldesh were properly weighed and sufficiently referenced in order to satisfy the test that he was in no danger if he returned to his native land. The entire issue of credibility appears to rest on one aspect and only one question put to him by the Board which was directed to his knowledge of the political situation in Bangladesh.
[10] The board suggested in their decision that the applicant stated he was well informed of
the political situation in his country. A careful reading of the transcript indicates that he
Page: 4 made no such assertion and I must conclude that the Board's finding as to credibility is now suspect.
[11] The board then proceeded to analyse how atrocious conditions were in Bangaldesh under the BNP regime which was the party to which he had pledged allegiance. The situation facing the applicant came about because the AL league had taken power and it was causing him problems; the BNP had been removed from office and could not be the author of atrocities directed towards the applicant.
[12] They suggest that BNP members are generally not at risk from persecution in Bangladesh. Then in their own decision, at page 5, they appear to contradict themselves and write:
The fierce struggle for power between Bangladesh's main political parties has fostered a situation of lawlessness and civil strive in which wanton acts of violence and intimidation by both the former ruling party, the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), backed by security forces, and the opposition parties, have become routine features of the political process.
[13] The decision contains the following statement:
The only risk the claimant would face, in our opinion, if he resumed his political life in Bangladesh, would be that faced by any participant in the public or political process; random street violence caused by political workers and supporters and riposted by security forces. The response of the security forces in these situations does not amount to persecution. The acts of warring political party do not amount to persecution.
Page: 5 [14] To suggest that the applicant could return to Bangaldesh but not involve himself in political activity appears contradictory to what the International Convention is attempting to protect. A Convention refugee is a person who fears persecution by reason of a membership in a particular group or having a political opinion. The board failed to analyse this applicant's personal fears and put them in context with the ongoing political violence in Bangladesh.
[15] To analyse the documentary evidence with respect to country conditions without reference to the claimant's objective fear and ignore the risks leaves too many questions unanswered.
[16] Having determined that the decision is deficient both on credibility and improper assessment of country conditions, I need not address the other issues. This application is allowed and the matter is hereby returned for redetermination before a newly constituted panel.
•` p. ROULEAU •,
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario January 28, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-2346-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: AMIRUL ISLAM v.
THE MINISTER
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 13, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ROULEAU DATED: JANUARY 28, 1999
APPEARANCES
MR. JEAN-MICHEL MONTBRIAND FOR THE APPLICANT
MR. DANIEL LATULIPPE FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
DOYON, GUERTIN, MONTBRIAND FOR THE APPLICANT & PLAMONDON
MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC
MR. MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA