Date: 20041206
Docket: IMM-10499-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1704
Toronto, Ontario, December 6th, 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
FAIZ SULTANA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] In the present case, the Applicant produced evidence before the Refugee Protection Board ("RPB") that she has well founded prospective subjective and objective fear of two entities in Pakistan: the Sunni radical organisation, the Sepah Sahaba; and her father-in-law. The Applicant's fear of persecution is grounded on the fact that she and her husband converted from Sunni to Shia.
[2] The RPB dismissed the Applicant's claim of persecution on the basis of implausibility findings with respect to her evidence. I find that the standard for making such findings is that stated by Justice Muldoon in Valtchev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration) [2001] FCJ No. 1131 as follows:
¶ _7_____ A tribunal may make adverse findings of credibility based on the implausibility of an applicant's story provided the inferences drawn can be reasonably said to exist.__However, plausibility findings should be made only__in the clearest of cases,__i.e., if__the facts as presented are outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected, or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant.__A tribunal must be careful when rendering a decision based on a lack of plausibility because refugee claimants come from diverse cultures, and actions which appear implausible when judged from Canadian standards might be plausible when considered from within the claimant's milieu. [see L. Waldman, Immigration Law and Practice (Markham, ON: Butterworths, 1992) at 8.22]
[Emphasis added]
Therefore, in the present case, to meet the standard in Valtchev, it was incumbent on the RPB to state in it's decision sufficient evidence as to the expected conduct of the Sepah Sahaba, and then to decide, having regard to this evidence, it is clear that the Applicant's story about the organisation's conduct towards her is unbelievable. I find that the RPB failed to meet this test.
[3] As a result, I find that the decision is patently unreasonable.
ORDER
Accordingly, I set aside the RPB's decision and refer the matter back to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.
"Douglas R. Campbell"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-10499-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: FAIZ SULTANA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 6 , 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: CAMPBELL J.
DATED: DECEMBER 6, 2004
APPEARANCES:
John Savaglio FOR THE APPLICANT
Mary Matthews FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John Savaglio
Barrister & Solicitor
Pickering, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20041206
Docket: IMM-10499-03
BETWEEN:
FAIZ SULTANA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER