MUHAMMAD AYAZ Applicant v. THE MINISTER, 2013 FC 79

Date: 20120125 Docket: IMM-2065-12 Citation: 2013 FC 79 Ottawa , Ontario , January 25, 2013 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider BETWEEN: MUHAMMAD AYAZ Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant, Mr. Muhammad Ayaz, is a citizen of Pakistan who fears persecution in Pakistan because of his adherence to the Muslim Zikri-Mehdvi (Zikri) faith.

In a decision dated February 6, 2012, a panel of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) concluded that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under s. 96 or ss. 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 ( IRPA ). In so finding, the Board concluded that the Applicant had an internal flight alternative (IFA) in areas outside of the town where he was allegedly persecuted. [ 2 ] The Applicant seeks to overturn this decision. [ 3 ] The decision is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness.

The role of the court when a reasonableness standard is appropriate is to determine “whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law” ( Dunsmuir v New Brunswick , 2008 SCC 9 at para 47 , [2008] 1 SCR 190 [ Dunsmuir ] ). A court should also examine whether the decision displays “justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process” ( Dunsmuir , above at para 47 ).

In spite of the high degree of deference owed to the decision-maker in this case, I conclude that the Court’s intervention is warranted. [ 4 ] The Board believed the Applicant’s story of persecution at the hands of a local Mullah in the neighbourhood of one of his business offices and appears to have accepted that a warrant for his arrest, on charges of blasphemy, had been issued by the police in the Baldia town district of Karachi (Baldia). The Board recognized that the Applicant’s fear was that he would be at risk in other areas because of the blasphemy charges.

In concluding that the Applicant would not be persecuted in an IFA outside of Baldia, the Board made two critical findings. With respect to the blasphemy charges, the Board found that it was “unlikely that the authorities in other parts of the country would become aware of or have a serious interest in following up on these charges” (Decision, paragraph 22). In the event that he were to be arrested on the blasphemy charges, the Board concluded as follows:

Any belief that he would not receive a just hearing is largely speculative, particularly in light of objective evidence that many suchcharges are baseless, bogus, laid largely for harassment purposes, and are ultimately found frivolous and dismissed (Decision, paragraph24). [5] I have serious problems with both of these findings. [6] The Applicant does not dispute the Board’s finding that Zikri adherents may suffer discrimination but are not persecuted inall regions of Pakistan.

The Applicant also acknowledges that the Board applied the correct two-part test for IFA (Rasaratnam v Canada(Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1992] 1 FC 706, 140 NR 138 (CA). However, as the Applicantpointed out during the hearing before the Board, the issue is with respect to the blasphemy charge and not just his fear of the Mullah inhis local region.

Quite simply, the charge of blasphemy, which was accepted by the Board, puts a much more serious risk into play. [7] The Board correctly identified the fact that, in Pakistan, warrants issued in one jurisdiction are not automatically forwardedto other jurisdictions. There is a process for registering warrants in other areas. However, under the Pakistani Code of CriminalProcedure, a warrant may be executed anywhere in Pakistan.

There was not a single piece of evidence before the Board that would allowit to conclude that warrants are not routinely transferred or accessed electronically by police in other jurisdictions. In supporting itsfinding that the charges would not be referred outside Baldia, the Board relies on the “nature of the alleged charges”. The Board does notappear to take into account the seriousness of blasphemy charges against a person of a minority religion in a country where religiousintolerance is notorious.

The Board also refers to the Applicant’s “profile” as another reason why the charges would not be knownoutside Baldia. While the Board recognizes the source of the charges as a business dispute, the Board fails to address the fact that thisdispute resulted in charges of blasphemy, a very serious allegation against the Applicant, regardless of its origin. [8] The second part of the Board’s decision – that the Applicant would be afforded due process – is simply not intelligible. Evenif the charges are ultimately dismissed, the Applicant will face considerable time in prison before his acquittal.

The Board did notevaluate the treatment of a person of the Applicant’s profile; that is, as a member of religious minority charged with blasphemy. Yet, therecord before the Board included significant, credible documentary evidence that Pakistani courts fail to protect the rights of religiousminorities, that individuals subjected to such charges may spend lengthy periods in detention and that torture of those in custody iscommonplace.

The Board erred by failing to have regard to this relevant and probative evidence. [9] Moreover, this is not a case where, as part of the judicial review, an applicant selects extracts from the evidence which werenot relied on during the hearing. In the hearing before the Board, counsel for the Applicant made extensive and specific reference to thisevidence. It should have been considered. [10] For these reasons, I conclude that the Board’s decision does not display justification, transparency and intelligibility within thedecision-making process.

I wish to emphasize that I am not finding that the Applicant should have been afforded refugee protection; thatis a matter for a newly-constituted Board to determine with a full understanding of the nature of the claim and an appreciation of theevidence. [11] Neither party proposes a question for certification. JUDGMENT THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that: 1. the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision quashed and the matter remitted to a different panel of the Boardfor re-determination; and 2. no question of general importance is certified.

“Judith A. Snider” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2065-12 STYLE OF CAUSE: MUHAMMAD AYAZ v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: CALGARY, ALBERTA DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 21, 2013 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: SNIDER J. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2013 APPEARANCES : Mr. Ram Sankaran FOR THE APPLICANT Ms. Camille Audain FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Barristers and Solicitors Calgary , Alberta FOR THE APPLICANT

William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Calgary , Alberta FOR THE RESPONDENT