Date: 20000622
Docket: IMM-3434-99
BETWEEN:
REFFAT JAHAN and ANGKON JAHAN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAWSON J.
[1] Reffat Jahan is a 40 year old citizen of Bangladesh. She claims status as a Convention refugee on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of her gender.
[2] Angkon Jahan is Reffat Jahan"s 7 year old daughter. Her claim to Convention refugee status is reliant upon her mother"s claim.
[3] The applicant was married in 1990 in Bangladesh. She alleged that while married she was frequently beaten by her husband, such beatings continuing even during her pregnancy. In her words:
| The tormenting, vindictive and frightening husband of mine put my life into danger and finally caused me to flee from the country. |
[4] The Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the"CRDD") in a decision dated June 22, 1999 rejected the applicants" claims on the basis that it did not find Mrs. Jahan"s account of domestic violence to be credible, and on the basis that the evidence did not establish that the authorities were unable or unwilling to provide state protection to Mrs. Jahan and her daughter.
[5] The applicants seek an order quashing the decision of the CRDD and referring their claims for redetermination before a differently constituted panel of the CRDD.
The findings of credibility
[6] With respect to the finding of credibility made by the CRDD, counsel for the Minister very fairly in oral argument described as "perplexing" at least some of the CRDD"s references to, and conclusions drawn from, the evidence.
[7] Notwithstanding those concerns, counsel for the respondent argued, persuasively, that in the circumstances of the present case the determinative issue was that of the availability of state protection. I accept that analysis.
The availability of state protection
[8] In respect of the availability of state protection, the CRDD stated in its reasons as follows:
| This panel does not believe the account of domestic violence. Yet, even if we were to believe the account, what then must be assessed is whether the feared violence, now that the claimant is divorced from her husband, is a violation of a fundamental human right for a Convention grounds, and in what circumstances can the risk of that violence be said to result from a failure of state protection. |
| The evidence seems to suggest that in the late 80s and early 90s, there was little possibility of intervention and support for women"s legal rights. Yet, more recent documentation does not corroborate the state of helplessness that the claimant has depicted in her PIF and in her oral testimony. |
| Firstly, the two times the claimant asked for police help she did obtain it, although it was not the desired result. Secondly, trends indicate that the issue of women and the problems they may face is more publicized and there is also an increased social awareness. |
| The tribunal is also aware that the vast majority of divorce cases registered in Dhaka"s mayor"s office is on the rise, and the vast majority is initiated by women. The society itself is also breaking religious taboos. The social context is also changing. This does not mean that there are no problems for women. |
| The government, nevertheless, has not thrown in the towel and abandoned women altogether. There are continuous attempts to curb the discrimination suffered by women along with the attitudes and abuses they endure. The state has increased its measures to counter the apparent abuses. Exhibit A-8 states: |
| Women "s investigation units, staffed by female officers, have been established in four stations on a trial basis to investigate complaints by women. If successful, other units may be opened elsewhere in the country. The Department of Women"s Affairs has also established a unit that provides legal counselling and advice in cases related to violence against women. |
| On the 28th of May 1998, Bangladeshi media sources reported that in late April the Home Affairs Ministry approved a proposal to establish a special squad within the CID to investigate crimes against women and children, including trafficking, acid throwing, child abuse and rape. The 250-member squad which will be responsible for all 64 districts and metropolitan areas in the entire country, will be headed by a Special Superintendent of Police (SSP), and an additional superintendent of police. |
| There is a growing awareness of the problem by government, media and by women"s rights organizations. |
| When considering the financial element, programs have been in place to allow credit to a large number of women, and employment opportunities have actually been stronger for women than for men in the past few years. |
| This overview is important to better understand the evolving social context of Bangladeshi society. Taking everything into account, it would be unfair to say that the Bangladesh state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant. The presumption of availability of state protection, as indicated in (Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R.) has not been rebutted. Although this protection may not be perceived by the claimant as being perfect, the tribunal has also evaluated the concept of adequacy, as expressed in (Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.) and further developed in (Zalzali v.Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] 3 F.C. 605 (F.C.A.); (1991), 14 Imm. L.R. (2d) 81; 126 N.R. 126 (F.C.A.)). The evidence provided does not indicate that the authorities are unwilling or unable to help the claimant.[footnotes omitted] |
[9] The standard of review of decisions of the CRDD, except where questions involving the interpretation of a statute are involved, is generally patent unreasonableness. See: Sivasamboo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] 1 F.C. 741 (T.D.); Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982.
[10] Notwithstanding the very able submissions of counsel for Mrs. Jahan and her daughter, I am unable to conclude that the view which the CRDD took on the evidence before it of the availability of state protection was patently unreasonable.
[11] The issue of the availability of state protection is a question within the jurisdiction and expertise of the CRDD. There was evidence before the CRDD upon which it could reasonably conclude that the presumption of the availability of state protection had not been rebutted.
[12] While others may well have reached a different conclusion on the evidence, there was evidence to support the conclusion of the CRDD. I have therefore concluded that there is no basis on which this Court may interfere to set aside the decision of the CRDD.
[13] Counsel did not suggest any question for certification and no question is certified.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
June 22, 2000