Date: 20020214
Docket: IMM-1012-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 171
BETWEEN:
MAHMOOD AHMAD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Board"), dated January 24, 2001, wherein the Board determined that the applicant was not a Convention Refugee.
[2] The applicant is a 28-year-old citizen of Pakistan. He is a member of the Shia Muslim religious minority in Pakistan. He alleged a well-founded fear of persecution by the Sipah-e-Sahaba and related Sunni militant organizations because of his religion. He further alleged that state protection would not be available to him.
[3] The applicant claimed that he was an active member of the Imamia Student Organization at the Government College of Technology in Lahore, and that he later became a member of another local Shia organization called Fiqah-Jafria.
[4] The applicant further alleged that he was attacked by members of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) three times between April 1996 and April or May 1997. He stated that the police were notified, but refused to take action.
[5] The applicant obtained a student visa through an immigration consultant and arrived in Canada in November 1997. After the applicant's arrival in Canada, on the advice of an immigration consultant, he filed an application for permanent residence under the independent class. This application was denied in October 1999. In November 1999, the applicant applied for refugee status.
[6] The Board's refusal was based largely on the two-year delay in claiming refugee status, which it found contradicted the applicant's claim of subjective fear. The Board found that the claimant was an intelligent man who "would not have relied on the advice of one consultant alone, if indeed he was a refugee in need of protection, but would have taken the appropriate steps to claim refugee status as soon as he arrived." The Board also found that it was not persuaded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the state would not reasonably be forthcoming with serious efforts to protect the claimant from those whom he fears, if he returned to Pakistan.
[7] The applicant first submits that the Board erred in finding that the applicant's delay contradicted his testimony of subjective fear. While I recognize that the Board did put a lot of emphasis on the delay, nevertheless, such a circumstance is a relevant factor which the Board is entitled to consider. This conclusion was reasonably open to it.
[8] Further, with regard to the Board's finding on state protection, the applicant argues that the documentary evidence relied upon, in this regard, was both inconclusive and contradictory in nature.
[9] Again, I am unable to find that the Board erred in its assessment. It acknowledged that the police may have been unwilling to protect the applicant in 1997, but found that since that time the government has been taking a much harder line with militants. There was clearly evidence to support the Board's findings, and thus, there is no reviewable error on this issue.
[10] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
February 14, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-1012-01
STYLE OF CAUSE:
MAHMOOD AHMAD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATED: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2002
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. John Savaglio
For the Applicant
Ms. Angela Marinos
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John Savaglio
Barrister & Solicitor
1919 Brookshire Square
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6L2
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20020214
Docket: IMM-1012-01
BETWEEN:
MAHMOOD AHMAD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER