Date: 20000824
Docket: IMM-3620-99
Between:
MOHAMMAD IQBAL HOSAIN
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the panel) dated July 5, 1999, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. I-2.
[2] The applicant, who is a Bangladeshi citizen, claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinion. According to his Personal Information Form, he was
a member of the Jatiyatabadi Chatra Dal (JCD), the student wing of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).
[3] The panel concluded that there was no nexus between the applicant's claim and one of the grounds in the definition of a Convention refugee, essentially for the following reasons:
- The applicant attempted to diminish the extent of the JCD's violent activities; according to the documentary evidence, the student wings of each party in Bangladesh regularly resorted to violence; the BNP therefore had to crack down on the activities of the JCD's student factions because of their extreme violence. The crackdown took place during the period when the applicant was the assistant secretary general of his local branch of the JCD; the applicant did nothing to put a stop to the violent incidents that occurred during the marches and meetings he organized; the panel therefore places no weight on the applicant's statement that he was opposed to violent activities.
- The documentary evidence indicates that the arrests usually took place after violent demonstrations and involved people suspected of contributing to the violence.
- The accusations made by the applicant against the police may have been unfounded.
- It is clear from the documentary evidence that the courts in Bangladesh acted independently, in that they found a majority of the arrests made under the Special Powers Act to be illegal.
[4] Given these circumstances, the panel concluded as follows:
Because of the above analysis, we believe that the claimant is fleeing prosecution for violent activities which are not defined as political expression. It is the tribunal's opinion that the conscientious participation in politically motivated acts of violence resulting in physical injury and possibly death do not qualify as expression of political opinion, as contained within the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol with regards to "Convention refugees". Within the Canadian context, even in Ward, although there are two refinements of political opinion within the context of the "Convention refugee" definition, there is no clear indication as to what political activities include. Nevertheless, the persecutor, in this case the police in Bangladesh, consider the claimant's conduct as being that of a violent activity. This analysis is also corroborated by the lawyer's letters, P-7 and P-12.
This Panel, therefore, finds no nexus with the definition contained in Section 2(1) of the Immigration Act since the alleged fear of persecution is not due to political opinion but rather is a result of violent acts and accusations which have aroused in the claimant a fear of being prosecuted by the State authorities.[Footnotes omitted.]
[5] Despite Mr. Lebrun's polished presentation, I am not satisfied that it was unreasonable for the panel to conclude that the applicant was complicit in violent acts he was personally aware of, considering his position within the JCD. It follows that the inference drawn by this specialized panel, that the applicant was wanted not because of his political opinion, but because of the violence used during the demonstration, could reasonably have been drawn (see the decision of the Federal Court in Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315). Given the circumstances, the panel's finding that if the applicant were arrested in Bangladesh he would be dealt by an independent judicial system appears to me to be sound.
[6] As a result, since the applicant failed to establish that the panel based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the
material before it, the intervention of this Court is not warranted and the application for judicial review is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 24, 2000
Certified true translation
Monica Chamberlain
Date: 20000824
Docket: IMM-3620-99
Ottawa, Ontario, the 24th day of August 2000
Present: the Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
MOHAMMAD IQBAL HOSAIN
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated February 5, 1999, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Monica Chamberlain
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORDS
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-3620-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMAD IQBAL HOSAIN v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: July 11, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: August 24, 2000
APPEARANCES:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE APPLICANT
SHERRY RAFAI FAR FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada