Date: 19980409
Docket: IMM-1006-97
BETWEEN:
SHAKEEL AHMED
| Applicant |
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] The applicant seeks an order setting aside a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") which dismissed his claim to refugee status in Canada.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinions. The applicant says that he is a member of the Awami National Party ("ANP"), a political party in Pakistan. According to the applicant, he was threatened and brutalized, on a number of occasions between 1993 and 1995, by supporters of the Pakistan People"s Party, ("PPP") by reason of his membership and activities with the ANP.
[3] The applicant further says that his father was killed by PPP supporters in March 1995 and that he received death threats himself. The leadership of his party took the matter up with the leadership of the PPP, the party then in power in Pakistan. As a result of these discussions, the applicant claims that the Provincial Chief Minister "adopted the same course as the PPP does in such cases", i.e. a false case of trading in illegal arms was brought against the applicant. The applicant states that a warrant for his arrest was issued on April 15, 1995. Upon being informed of the issuance of the warrant, the applicant went into hiding. Following the advice of his friends, relatives and party leaders, the applicant left Pakistan in order to avoid arrest. He arrived in Montreal on May 8, 1995 and claimed refugee status.
[4] The Board dismissed the applicant"s claim on two grounds. Firstly, the Board found the applicant"s evidence non-credible in regard to a number of relevant points. Secondly, the Board concluded that the applicant had "a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)". Concerning the second ground, counsel for the respondent conceded during the hearing that the Board"s conclusion could not stand. I agree. However, for the reasons that follow, this error is of no consequence.
[5] With respect to the first ground, the applicant challenged a number of findings made by the Board. Central to the Board"s determination on credibility are its findings concerning the purported warrant of arrest. The Board"s reasons on this point are as follows:
The claimant attributes his father"s death to local PPP goons who attacked the recently renovated headquarters of the ANP and said so in a newspaper report. The claimant alleges that he and his father were the intended victims of this attack because the attackers who were riding motor cycles shouted that they wanted to kill father and son. He also alleges that he received a threatening letter from someone on the day of his father"s burial, March 20, 1995. He complained about these events to the President of his party, Mr. Ajmal Khattack, who brought it up to the Chief Minister of the provincial government. When he failed to admit responsibility of the PPP for the murder, Mr. Khattack threatened to bring it up with the Prime Minister herself. In retaliation, the claimant alleges that the Chief Minister himself had false charges of trafficking in illegal arms brought against the claimant.
The claimant was questioned about the two copies of the warrant of arrest and the letter from his attorney which he filed in support of his contention that false charges of arms dealing have been laid against him. The copy of the warrant of arrest was obtained by his brother and was subsequently sent by the claimant to a lawyer in Pakistan who had the warrant certified as a true copy of the original, allegedly by the very officer to whom the warrant is addressed. Despite this attestation we do not believe that this warrant is valid. The hand-written words "criminal" and "Urdu" appear in the heading of the copy of the warrant submitted at the hearing. Why these English words have been inserted at the top, in the heading of the warrant of arrest, was unexplained and highly improbable, since the rest of the warrant is written in Urdu. Furthermore, the claimant omitted to produce the First Information Report (FIR) listing the actual charges against him. The panel believes this omission to be significant. If his attorney was capable of obtaining a certified copy of a warrant, why would he not also obtain a copy of the charges against the claimant.
The panel has no faith in the lawyer"s letter either. Besides the spelling mistake in the word, [sic ] "Legal" in his letterhead, (would any self-respecting lawyer not know how to spell the word, [sic ] "legal"?), we find the letter so vague as to be worthless as support for the claimant"s allegations. There is no number of the allegedly pending case, no dates on which he allegedly went to court on the claimant"s behalf, no details on how he tried to quash the warrant, no copies of documents filed on the claimant"s behalf. We find these omissions significant and accord very little probative value to this letter. With respect to his fear of persecution based on these false charges we conclude that the claimant has failed to establish his claim by credible and trustworthy evidence.1
[6] The Board"s findings regarding the warrant of arrest were "central" because the applicant testified that he did not wish to return to Pakistan because he feared that he would be arrested on "those trumped up charges which have been levelled against me they will try to make me confess"2.
[7] During the first hearing held on April 9, 1996, the applicant testified that, before a warrant could be issued, a First Information Report ("FIR") had to be filed. The applicant stated that he was aware of this because of his involvement in politics. When asked by the Board if his lawyer in Pakistan knew who wrote up the FIR, the applicant answered that he could give the Board his lawyer"s telephone number in Pakistan.
[8] Near the end of the April 9, 1996 hearing the Board indicated to the applicant that more information was required concerning the charges brought against him. The matter was then adjourned to May 22, 1996 to enable the applicant to obtain additional documents on a number of points. On May 22, 1996 the matter was further adjourned to May 29, 1996 as the documents sought by the applicant had not yet been received.
[9] On May 29, 1996, the matter was again adjourned since the applicant and his lawyer were not present. However, the Board noted for the record that it had received from the applicant, inter alia, a letter from a Pakistan lawyer dated May 9, 1996, and a translation of a warrant of arrest.
[10] During the arguments which took place on July 16, 1996, the Board pointed out to counsel for the applicant that he had not produced the FIR. Counsel responded that he had forgotten "about that one".
[11] I agree with the Board that the applicant ought to have produced the FIR or at the very least explained why it could not be produced. No such attempt was made by the applicant. With respect to the letter dated May 9, 1996 sent by the applicant"s lawyer in Pakistan, it reads, in part, as follows:
As regards your other case of dealing in un authorise Arms, I am working on it. However I do not want to give you false hopes. The Government has somehow collected witnesses to whom you have allegedly sold the Arms.
| The case is pending in the court as it could not be proceeded with in your absence. I tried to get your warrant of arrest quashed but it was not possible. Your brother has also contacted me and we are proceeding with the case Actively. |
However if you need any further Information Please feel free to contact me. [errors in original]
[12] I also agree with the Board that it is somewhat surprising that the lawyer was unable to obtain a copy of the FIR or, to provide information regarding the charges laid against the applicant.
[13] The Board also indicated that it did not have any "faith in the lawyer"s letter either". The Board pointed out that the word "legal" was misspelled as "Leagle"in the lawyer"s letterhead. The Board stated in its reasons:
... would any self-respecting lawyer not know how to spell the word, [sic] "legal"?3
[14] The applicant argued that the word "leagle" was obviously a misprint. I disagree. If the applicant"s lawyer were truly an advocate of the Pakistan High Court, as he purports to be, I have no doubt that the spelling of the word "Legal" in his letterhead would be correct. I also agree with the Board"s statement that the lawyer"s letter is "so vague as to be worthless as support for the claimant"s allegations".
[15] Thus, I am of the view that the Board did not make any error when it concluded that "very little probative value" could be given to the lawyer"s letter. Consequently, the Board disregarded completely the evidence adduced by the applicant regarding the alleged false charges brought against him by the PPP. In my view, on the evidence, the Board"s findings are reasonable.
[16] The applicant challenged other findings made by the Board in regard to his story. In view of my conclusion regarding the Board"s findings concerning the false charges and the warrant of arrest, I do not see any point in discussing the other findings raised by the applicant. As the charges brought against the applicant for trading illegal arms and the warrant of arrest issued concerning these charges were central to the applicant"s story, the Board"s findings that that evidence was not credible were sufficient to dispose of the applicant"s claim to refugee status. My conclusion that the Board"s findings are not unreasonable is sufficient to dispose of this application for judicial review.
[17] The application shall therefore be dismissed.
"MARC NADON"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
April 9, 1998
__________________