Date: 20000225
Docket: IMM-1232-99
Between :
BASHARAT HUSSAIN, domiciled and residing at
48-A Colborne Str., Fenlon Falls, Ontario, K0M 1N0,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION, c/o Justice Department,
Guy Favreau Complex, 200 West René-Lévesque, East Tower,
5th Floor, Montreal, Quebec, H2Z 1X4,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated February 12, 1999, in which the Board determined that he was not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act.
[2] The Board accepted as credible the applicant's testimony regarding the sheltering of the two mubalahs and the attack and threats by the fundamentalists in Kunjah. However, the Board doubted whether the alleged events in Kunjah after the applicant's departure actually occurred. It found that the information regarding these events lacked credible documentary corroboration and did not have the same degree of specificity as the applicant's evidence regarding his own experiences. Although the Board found that the applicant had a reasonable chance of being persecuted in Kunjah, it did not find that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in other parts of Pakistan. The Board concluded therefore that there was an internal flight alternative (IFA) available to him. The Board stated that it would have come to this conclusion even if it had not had concerns about the applicant's credibility.
[3] The applicable test in considering the possibility of an IFA was defined in Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 109 D.L.R. (4th) 682, at page 687:
| Thus, IFA must be sought, if it is not unreasonable to do so, in the circumstances of the individual claimant. This test is a flexible one, that takes into account the particular situation of the claimant and the particular country involved. This is an objective test and the onus of proof rests on the claimant on this issue, just as it does with all the other aspects of a refugee claim. Consequently, if there is a safe haven for claimants in their own country, where they would be free of persecution, they are expected to avail themselves of it unless they can show that it is objectively unreasonable for them to do so. |
[4] In the case at bar, the applicant claims that the Board failed to take into account important evidence in its assessment that an IFA was available to him. In particular, he argues that the Board ignored documentary evidence and the Refugee Claim Officer's (RCO) report that he has no effective IFA.
[5] In my view, the Board did not ignore evidence. The fact that the Board did not mention every document entered in evidence does not indicate that it failed to take them into account. Moreover, the Board was not required to accept the applicant's opinion that he would be pursued by fundamentalists outside of Kunjah simply because it found some of his testimony credible (see, for example, Sekhon v. M.C.I. (December 23, 1997), IMM-941-97).
[6] It appears to me that the applicant is asking this court to determine the appropriate weight to be given to documentary evidence and the RCO report. The weight to be given to such evidence, however, "is a matter for the tribunal's proper discretion. Unless that discretion can be said to be unreasonably exercised, this court will not intervene" (see Tawfik v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 137 F.T.R. 43, at page 46).
[7] In my opinion, the Board's decision that it was reasonable for the applicant to reside in another part of Pakistan was supported by some, if not all, of the evidence submitted to it. The Board took into account the fact that the applicant was not charged with a criminal offence and that he was not sought by the authorities while he was staying with his relatives. It also considered such factors as the applicant's age, education and work experience. In my view, the Board's decision was reasonable in light of all the evidence before it.
[8] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 25, 2000