Date: 19990622
Docket: IMM-4752-98
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD AZAD ISHAQ
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
GIBSON J.:
[1] These reasons arise out of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the"CRDD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board in which the CRDD determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee. The decision of the CRDD, made at Vancouver, British Columbia, is dated the 1st of September, 1998. At the close of the hearing, I indicated that the application for judicial review would be dismissed and provided brief oral reasons. What follows is an elaborated version of those brief oral reasons.
[2] The applicant is a twenty-six year old citizen of Fiji, a Muslim, of East Indian decent. He arrived in Canada on the 15th of December, 1995 and made his claim to Convention refugee status on the 2nd of October, 1996. He based his claim on his race and his perceived political opinion.
[3] The CRDD based its rejection of the applicant"s claim on the grounds that the applicant failed to establish a nexus between his fear of persecution and a Convention reason and failed to establish that the Fijian state was unable or unwilling to protect him.
[4] It is trite to say that the issue before the Court on an application for judicial review such as this is not whether the Court would have reached the same decision as the CRDD, but rather whether the decision that the CRDD reached was reasonably open to it.
[5] In its reasons, the CRDD quite specifically noted that economically motivated violence was prevalent in Fiji at the relevant time as was racially motivated and politically motivated violence. The totality of the evidence before the CRDD would appear to have established a nexus to politically motivated violence in the case of the applicant"s father but the evidence indicating involvement of the applicant himself in political activity was limited.
[6] In its reasons, the CRDD pointed out that, on at least one occasion when the applicant was attacked, money was demanded of him. Thus, there was evidence of economic motivation as opposed to political or racial motivation for the violence against the applicant and his family. I conclude it was open to the CRDD to find that a nexus to a Convention reason for the violence against the applicant was not established.
[7] On the issue of state protection, whether or not I agree with the CRDD that the applicant should have gone further in seeking state protection, I am satisfied that the CRDD"s conclusion, on the evidence before it, that the applicant did not pursue state protection to the extent contemplated in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward1 was also reasonably open.
[8] In the result, on both grounds, I found no basis to interfere in the decision of the CRDD and dismissed the application for judicial review.
[9] Neither counsel recommended certification of a question. No question was certified.
_________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
June 22, 1999
__________________