Date: 20041027
Docket: IMM-1347-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1512
Montréal, Quebec, this 27th day of October, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARRINGTON
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD AFZAL GONDAL
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] "What a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive". While one may be a liar and a refugee both, all Mr. Gondal proved to the satisfaction of the Immigration and Refugee Board was that he "is not credible".
[2] Mr. Gondal is a citizen of Pakistan who claims to be a Convention refugee, or a person otherwise in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c-27, on the grounds of his religion (Muslim Shia), his political opinion and the risk he runs of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
[3] His claim straddles the two years he spent in the United States, from June 2000 to August 2002. In April 2000, he was arrested during a procession and his house was attacked by goons. He and his family were also injured during that attack, which led him to flee to the United States, where, he says, he sought asylum, but then withdrew his claim.
[4] He apparently returned to Pakistan in August 2002 because his principal persecutor was dead and because his mother was ill. Goons attempted to extort money from him. He resisted, was kidnapped and only released when he paid up. He came to Canada in January 2003 on false papers.
[5] In rejecting his claim the Board member was of the view that Mr. Gondal kept embellishing his claim as time went on. Constant inconsistencies, implausibilities and contradictions in his written declaration and in his testimony led the Board to believe he was not credible.
[6] For instance, in his Front End Interview on 19 February 2003, he declared he was only arrested once in Pakistan, in November 2002. He said the same thing in his Personal Information Form, but then "corrected" it more than a year and a half later, just before his hearing. He said he did not understand the question at the time of his Front End Interview, but had no explanation as to why his PIF, as originally filed, was incorrect.
[7] Although he testified that he had sought asylum in the United States, the papers provided were very confusing and did not support his claim. He just sent his lawyer another document after leave for judicial review was granted, but before the application was heard, which would apparently bolster his claim. I refused to accept it. It is noteworthy that the Board had observed:
...The panel believes that proof of this request [for asylum in the U.S.A.] would have greatly helped his claim and that the claimant, who is familiar with asylum procedures, should have brought documents in support of his request.
[8] At the time of his hearing before the Board, he did not have proof of how he got to Canada, i.e. passport, plane ticket or boarding pass. In written argument after the hearing, Mr. Gondal's counsel obviously believed there were no such documents as he submitted that Mr. Gondal's word should be taken. Then, nevertheless, before the decision was rendered, a plane ticket was forthcoming. Very convenient! Although it might have been better for the Board to have commented on that fact, and then rejected the copy of the ticket, the Board had already found many other reasons why Mr. Gondal was not credible. Furthermore, the Board went on to deal with his real passport which he had renewed in July 2002 in New York, but apparently did not use when he allegedly returned to Pakistan. The Board found the explanation unsatisfactory because if Mr. Gondal intended to travel to Pakistan on a false passport, why did he renew his real one. Why indeed? There comes a point of no return.
[9] As Hugessen J.A. (as he then was), speaking for the Court of Appeal, said in Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Dan-Ash (1988), 93 N.R. 33 at page 35:
...unless one is prepared to postulate (and accept) unlimited credulity on the part of the Board, there must come a point at which a witness's contradictions will move even the most generous trier of fact to reject his evidence...
[10] The Board made no reviewable error, and so I would dismiss the application for judicial review.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify.
"Sean Harrington"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1347-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMAD AFZAL GONDAL
AND
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 25, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER : HARRINGTON J.
DATED: OCTOBER 27, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Jeffrey Platt FOR APPLICANT
Andrea Shahim FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jeffrey Platt FOR APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec