Date: 20041109
Docket: IMM-2144-04
Citation: 2004 FC1579
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, this 9th day of November, 2004
PRESENT: CHIEF JUSTICE ALLAN LUTFY
BETWEEN:
MEHDI ABBAS KAZMI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER and ORDER
[1] Despite the focussed representations of his counsel, the applicant, a Shia citizen of Pakistan, has fallen far short of establishing any reviewable error in the thorough reasons of the Refugee Protection Division panel member.
[2] In her negative decision, the member accepted that the applicant was an active participant in the Pakistan People's Party and that he was "threatened and assaulted" in 1993 and 1996 by political opponents in his home city of Rawalpindi.
[3] However, the member concluded that Mr. Kazmi embellished his claim to such a point that she seriously questioned his credibility on other allegations. The member did not believe that Mr. Kazmi was targeted by religious extremists. Neither the letter from a senior party official, who was also a long-time friend of the applicant, nor a number of letters dated in 1999, 2002 and 2003 attesting to his Shia beliefs in general and similar terms, referred to specific acts of persecution prior to his departure from Pakistan in 1996. Also, the member noted the applicant's failure to make any mention of religious persecution in his three-page statement provided to immigration officials at the Windsor, Ontario port of entry. This negative credibility finding, explained in clear and unmistakable terms, is free from any reviewable error.
[4] The applicant's principal argument challenged the panel's determination that he had a viable internal flight alternative in the city of Hyderabad in Sindh province. In my view, the member properly applied the tests in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.) and Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.).
[5] The member found that the applicant did not have a high profile either as a political or religious activist. She also relied on the documentary evidence. Her failure to mention one paragraph relied upon by the applicant is no error, let alone a reviewable one: Akram v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 629 at paragraph 15. The extract in question dealt with the presence in Sindh of the Mohajir Quami Movement, an issue unrelated to the applicant's situation.
[6] It was open to the member, on the basis of the record before her and for the reasons extensively set out in her decision, to conclude that the applicant could seek safety in Hyderabad and that it would not be unduly harsh in all of the circumstances to do so.
[7] Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question and none will be certified.
ORDER
This application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Allan Lutfy"
C.J.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2144-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MEHDI ABBAS KAZMI v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: EDMONTON, ALBERTA
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 27, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: LUTFY C.J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 9, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Simon K. Yu FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. W. Brad Hardstaff FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Simon K. Yu
Barrister & Solicitor
Edmonton, Alberta FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT