Date: 20001109
Docket: IMM-5406-99
Between :
SOHAIB ATHAR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
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 October 12, 1999, determining that he is not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the Act).
[2] The applicant, a 27 year old citizen of Pakistan, claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinion and his membership in a particular social group (the Mohajir ethnic group).
[3] The Board found that the applicant lacked credibility and was "very evasive and vague". It complained that critical questions had to be repeated several times. The Board elaborated by pointing to a number of inconsistencies and implausibilities pertaining to the applicant's credibility.
[4] For example, the Board did not accept the applicant's testimony concerning his fear of persecution due to his membership in the Mohajir ethnic group. The applicant testified that the Mohajirs do not have any rights, are deprived of jobs in the government and are faced with a quota system to get into universities and are discriminated against because of their fluency in Urdu. However, according to the documentary evidence, Mohajirs constitute approximately 60% of the population in the city of Karachi, where the applicant lived. In addition, Urdu is the national language in Pakistan, whereas English, the language used by the applicant to testify, was considered the language of the elite. This same document indicates that the Mohajirs are a relatively well-educated group that dominate the economic and political life in Karachi. The Board concluded that the applicant had certainly not encountered persecution and was even uncertain that he had been subjected to some form of discrimination.
[5] The Board also had some difficulty believing the applicant's testimony concerning his fear of persecution due to his political opinion. The applicant had a very difficult time demonstrating even a basic knowledge regarding the function of the Muthabida Quami Movement (MQM) or of the politics in his area. He contradicted himself concerning his role with the MQM, initially saying he played a non-political role and later saying he organized meetings. The applicant stated that he had never voted and never attempted to promote an MQM member to the government, which the Board found incredulous for someone who had any sort of political belief.
[6] The Board noted an inconsistency in the claimant's Personal Information Form (PIF) which reads as follows:
| I have been linked with the MQM since a number of years. Except for a few hurdles I never faced any life threatening problem. But since 1992 (the last couple of years), my life has been constantly at risk. |
[7] The Board noted that the applicant was allowed to amend his PIF from "the last couple of years" to "1992". However, since the applicant only joined the MQM in 1991, the Board found this amendment impacted negatively on his credibility.
[8] The applicant stated in his PIF that after the 1992 incident he made up his mind to "work harder for my party and voice the motto of my political party to a greater extent". In contrast, he testified having kept a low profile after the incident, in accordance with his family's wishes.
[9] The Board also drew a negative inference from the applicant's statement that he had moved to his aunt's home in Noazabad after the 1992 incident until 1993, because in his PIF, he indicates that he studied in Karachi between 1992 and 1993. The Board concluded that contrary to his contention, he must have spent considerable time in Karachi.
[10] As for the medical reports, these stated that the applicant had burns consistent with a steam iron, not an iron rod as claimed by the applicant, therefore the Board's members dismissed the burns as not having been related to the alleged persecution. The panel also found it difficult to believe that the applicant's mother could have obtained original copies of his identification documents if he truly was a wanted man and further concluded that this belied his alleged fear of persecution.
[11] Having come to a negative conclusion concerning the applicant's credibility, the Board chose not to give any weight to the psychological report. It concluded that this report was not indicative of a depression related to any alleged persecution.
[12] It is well founded in law that a review in Court should not interfere with the credibility findings of a Board, provided that the decision is properly founded on the evidence.
[13] Furthermore, the Board is certainly entitled to consider the applicant's behaviour during the hearing in assessing credibility (see Leung v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1990), 12 Imm.L.R. (2d) 43 (F.C.A.)). In the present case, it found that the applicant's conduct during his testimony was evasive and vague.
[14] The Board is also entitled to infer that an applicant is untrustworthy because of implausibilities in his or her evidence as long as its inferences are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 at 316 (F.C.A.)) and its reasons are set out in "clear and unmistakable terms" (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 15 Imm.L.R. (2d) 199 at 201 (F.C.A.)).
[15] In the present case, the Board explicitly set out its findings of inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant's evidence. In particular, I believe the Board's findings pertaining to the applicant's lack of knowledge of the MQM were reasonably founded on the evidence before it. It was also reasonable for the panel to conclude that a) it was unlikely the applicant's mother could have obtained original copies of his identification documents if he truly was a wanted man and b) that this belied his alleged fear of persecution.
[16] I accept the applicant's explanation that he did not comprehend the difference between a steam iron and an iron rod due to a difficulty with English terminology. Nonetheless, in light of the Board's findings on the credibility of the applicant's story, it was reasonable for it to have concluded that the iron burn was not related to the applicant's alleged experience of persecution. The same can be said of the psychological reports.
[17] I conclude, therefore, that the inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions identified by the tribunal could lead a reasonable person to draw the conclusion that the applicant lacked credibility.
[18] As a tribunal's perception that an applicant is not a credible witness effectively amounts to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which the tribunal could allow the claim, the Board could reasonably conclude as it did (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990], 3 F.C. 238 at 244).
[19] As for the question of bias raised before me, and not before the Board, I am not satisfied, upon reviewing the evidence, that an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically - and having thought the matter through - would conclude to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the case at bar, as set out by de Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. The National Energy Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at 394.
[20] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 9, 2000