2010 FC, 2010 FC 1170
Opinion
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20101122 Docket: IMM-19-10 Citation: 2010 FC 1170 Ottawa , Ontario, November 22, 2010 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly BETWEEN: IFTIKHAR AHMAD BUTT Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Butt arrived in Canada from Pakistan in 2008 and sought refugee protection on the basis that he and his family had been attacked by political opponents there. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Mr.
Butts application because it disbelieved his account of events and felt Pakistan was, in any event, able to protect him. [ 2 ] Mr. Butt argues that the Board erred by failing to explain adequately why it dismissed his claim. In my view, looking at its reasons as a whole, the Boards reasons were sufficient in the circumstances and I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. [ 3 ] The sole issue is whether the Board gave an adequate explanation for concluding that Mr. Butts account of events should not be believed. II. The Boards Decision
[4] The Board found that Mr. Butt had proved that he was an active member of a political party called the Pakistan MuslimLeague Quaid-e-Amam Group (PML-Q). His main adversaries were members of a rival party, the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz(PML-N). [5] The Board went on to note that a claimants testimony is presumed to be true.
However, where his or her testimony is devoidof credibility, the Board may find there is simply no reliable evidence supporting the claim (citing Maldonado v Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), (FCA), [1980] 2 FC 302 (CA), and Sheikh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration), (FCA), [1990] 3 FC 238 (CA)). [6] The Board then referred to a letter Mr. Butt had supplied from a PML-Q candidate, named Mr. Khawaja Hassan. The lettermade no mention of the PML-N. Instead, it attributed Mr. Butts departure to a group called the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP).
Further, theletter did not mention the assaults Mr. Butt had claimed to have endured. The Board also noted that Mr. Butt had claimed to havecontributed significantly to Mr. Hassans campaign. Yet, the letter referred to Mr. Butt merely as a donor and supporter. The Boarddetermined that the letter deserved no weight. [7] The Board also considered documentary evidence about the relationship between political parties in Pakistan. It citedisolated reports of PML-Q officials and supporters being harassed and arrested. However, police responded appropriately and those whowere arrested were afforded due process.
There was no documentary evidence supporting Mr. Butts claim of being attacked by PML-Nmembers. [8] Finally, the Board considered whether state protection was available in Pakistan. Here, the Board acknowledged that Mr.Butt had provided documentary proof, in the form of police reports, corroborating his allegation of being attacked. However, theevidence did not identify the assailants as members of the PML-N. In addition, the documents described the police response to theattacks, indicating that state protection was available. [9] The Board concluded that Mr.
Butts claim was not supported by credible or trustworthy evidence. Further, Mr. Butt had notshown that state protection was unavailable to him in Pakistan. On those grounds, it dismissed his application. III. Was the Boards Conclusion Adequately Explained? [10] Mr. Butt argues that the Boards conclusion that his claim was unsupported by reliable evidence was unreasonable. Inparticular, he claims that the Board appeared to dismiss his claim almost entirely on the basis that the letter from Mr. Hassan did notsupport it.
In his view, the Board failed to go on to consider whether the remainder of his evidence proved that his fear of persecutionwas well-founded. [11] In my view, if one reads it as a whole, the Boards decision was supported by adequate reasons. Mr. Butts claim of persecutionwas contradicted in three separate ways. First, in what should have been a valuable piece of corroborating evidence, Mr. Hassans letter,Mr. Butts account of events was unsupported. Second, the documentary evidence did not correspond with Mr. Butts allegation that PML-N supporters attacked PML-Q followers.
Third, the documentary evidence before the Board showed that state authorities had intervenedto protect PML-Q supporters when necessary.Overall, the evidence did not show that there was a reasonable chance that Mr. Butt wouldbe persecuted on political grounds if he returned to Pakistan. The Board addressed each of these areas and provided reasons for findingMr. Butts claim to be unsupported by the evidence. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that its reasons were inadequate. IV. Conclusion and Disposition [12] I find that the Boards conclusion that Mr.
Butts claim of political persecution was unsupported by trustworthy evidence wasadequately explained. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of generalimportance for me to certify, and none is stated. JUDGMENT THIS COURTS JUDGMENT is that
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed. 2. No question of general importance is stated. James W. OReilly Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-19-10 STYLE OF CAUSE: IFTIKHAR AHMAD BUTT v MCI PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto , Ontario DATE OF HEARING: November 1, 2010 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: OREILLY J. DATED: November 22, 2010 APPEARANCES : Micheal Crane, acting as an agent for Lisa Rosenblatt FOR THE APPLICANT Mehan Keramati FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD : LISA ROSENBLATT Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, O N . FOR THE APPLICANT MYLES J. KIRVAN Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto , ON . FOR THE RESPONDENT
Loading document…