Re: Canadian Immigration:: Humiliation For Fake Anti MQM Propaganda. کینڈین امیگرشن کے لئے ایم کیو &#
explain this
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca:8080/Reflex/Reflex_Article_FC.aspx?id=13266&l=e
Immigration Division File No. / No de dossier de la Section de l'immigration: A8-01585
Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
Immigration Division
Commission de l'immigration et
du statut de rfugi du Canada
Section de l'immigration
[FONT="]ID File No. / No de dossier de la SI :
0018-A8-01585[/FONT]
[FONT="]Client ID No. / No ID client :
3049-7539[/FONT]
[FONT="]Reasons and Decision – Motifs et dcision[/FONT]
Between
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness / Le ministre de la Scurit publique et de la Protection civile
[FONT="]Entre[/FONT]
and
et
Person(s) Concerned
Anila SHEIKH
Intress(e)(s)
Date(s) of Hearing
April 22, 2009
July 16, 2009
January 12, 2010
March 9, 2010
[FONT="]Date(s) de l'audience[/FONT]
[FONT="]Place of Hearing[/FONT]
Montral, Qubec
[FONT="]Lieu de l'audience[/FONT]
[FONT="]Date of Decision[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]June 10, 2010[/FONT]
[FONT="]Date de la dcision[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Panel[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Louis Dub[/FONT]
Tribunal
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Counsel for the Minister[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Claude Beaupr[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
Conseil du ministre
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
Counsel for the Person(s) Concerned
[FONT="]Me Joseph W. Allen[/FONT]
Conseil(s) pour l'intress(e) / les intress(e)(s)
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
REASONS FOR DECISION
Louis Dub, Member:
[FONT="][1] [/FONT] These are the reasons for the decision in the case of Anila SHEIKH. The allegation is pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(
f) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
34(1)(
f) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (
a), (
b) or (
c).
(
c)engaging in terrorism;
[FONT="][2] [/FONT] The documentary evidence in the file consists of exhibits submitted by the representative of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Claude Beaupr (M‑1 to M‑34), and exhibits submitted by Me Joseph W. Allen (A‑1 / News paper clips – en liasse) and also (C-1 to C-5) that the panel considered even though that evidence were filed with counsel's written submissions, after the hearing was closed.
[FONT="][3] [/FONT] Mrs. Sheikh was the only witness heard at the hearing.
Facts
[FONT="][4] [/FONT]
The following are the facts that are uncontested by the parties and that I consider to be established:
- Mrs. Sheikh is a citizen of Pakistan.
- She was in charge of APMSO (All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organisation) at her college during her years of study there.
- Being very popular at her college as an AMPSO representative, she was asked to join the MQM (Mothaidda Quami Movement) by one of its co-founders and General Secretary, Dr. Imram Farooq.
- She worked for the MQM, in charge of the women's wing in Karachi, from 1984 to 1988.
- After 1988, she was “…
only a member, not in charge…a supporter” until her departure for Canada in 1994.
- On October 29th, 2008, a
Report Under Subsection 44(1) of the IRPA (M‑1/B) was written.
[FONT="] [/FONT]
- On November 18th, 2008, a
Referral Under Subsection 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
for an Admissibility Hearing was signed (M‑1/A).
Canada Border Services Agency's Position
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="][5] [/FONT] [FONT="]The Minister's counsel, Mr. Beaupr reminded the panel that while looking at paragraph 34(1)(
f) of the IRPA, the decision maker should answer two questions. First, was Mrs. Sheikh a “
member” of the Mohajir Qaumi Movement (MQM), and secondly, is MQM a terrorist organization. Mr. Beaupr is of the opinion that after assessing the documentary evidence and the testimony of Mrs. Sheikh with the jurisprudence in mind, the evidence shows that there are reasonable grounds to believe that she was a “
member” of the MQM and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that this organization was involved in terrorism – as defined in
Suresh – definition of terrorism now recognized in Canadian immigration law.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
Counsel for Anila Sheikh's Position
[FONT="][6] [/FONT] Me Allen, in his written submissions, recognises that Mrs. Sheikh “
has in fact consistently admitted, in her PIF, her Convention refugee application for Permanent Resident Status and in her testimony at the present admissibility hearing to membership in the MQM (and MQM-A) and the student organisation (AMPSO) which to some extent gave birth to the MQM” (written submissions, p.2). But, at the time of her involvement with the MQM, that organization was not considered a terrorist organization. “
At no time did Mrs. Sheikh admit to ever having engaged in any acts of terrorism or violence on behalf of the MQM…” (written submissions, p.2). She only engaged in peaceful and democratic actions of political opposition and in fact she's the one who was persecuted during that period of time.
[FONT="][7] [/FONT] Counsel submits that Mrs. Sheikh admits there was violence, but it was done by people who were expelled from the MQM. The escalation of violence happened after 1988, when she ceased all effective activity. To consider her engaged in terrorism, violence “
…would need to have been committed while she was in Pakistan, and while being a member in the said group and that she knew or was aware of the atrocities committed by the MQM and willing to participated notwithstanding” (written submissions, p.3).
[FONT="][8] [/FONT] For Me Allen, it is also important to note that MQM was and still is recognized as a legitimate political party.
[FONT="][9] [/FONT] Me Allen also refers to paragraph 34(1)(
b) and paragraph 34(1)(
c) of IRPA regarding subversion by force against a democratic government. For him, Mrs. Sheikh never engaged in subversion or terrorism or was complicit of any terrorist activities. Furthermore, the government, MQM and MQM-A opposes, was not “
a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada” (written submissions, p.3).
[FONT="][10] [/FONT] Mrs. Sheikh's counsel also brings forward arguments related to the long delay between the moment his client was recognised as a refugee and the moment the Minister refered the case to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing. Mrs. Sheikh was recognized as a refugee in May 1997. She then applied for permanent residency in June 1997; “
no decision was ever rendered on this application notwithstanding numerous requests by both herself and her counsel” (written submissions, p.1). The Minister waited until November 2008 – 11 years – to refer the report 44 to the Immigration Division, which is an unreasonable and unwarranted delay that constitutes an abuse of process.
[FONT="][11] [/FONT] Me Allen also invokes the issue of
estoppel and submits that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the present matter. Being fully aware of the facts of Mrs. Sheikh's claim, since 1994 when she first claimed refugee status, the Minister should have intervened at the time and asked for her exclusion under section 1(F) of the 1951
United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or should have asked to vacate her refugee status if there were misrepresentations.
Analysis
[FONT="][12] [/FONT] I will first answer the arguments on abuse of process and the doctrine of issue
estoppel. Regarding the arguments of Me Allen on the abuse of process, the Immigration Division received a referral to proceed with an admissibility hearing on December 3, 2008. The first hearing was set for April 22, 2009, but, because of the very voluminous evidence, the case was postponed to give time to the Minister's representative to prepare a summary of the evidence. The case finally was heard on July 16, 2009, January 12, 2010 and March 9, 2010. Mr. Beaupr was given until April 9, 2010 and Me Allen untill May 10, 2010 to submit their written submissions. The present decision is given on June 10, 2010. It has not been demonstrated that an abuse of process or unreasonable and unwarranted delays occured on the part of the Immigration Division.
[FONT="][13] [/FONT] According to Me Allen, there was abuse of process or unreasonable and unwarranted delays on the part of the Minister in regard to the eleven years between the moment Mrs. Sheikh received refugee status and the referral of the section 44 report to the Immigration Division. Me Allen should address that question of validity of the referral to the proper tribunal, which is not the Immigration Division. In
Collins (IMM-2648-08), the Honourable Justice Hansen of the Federal Court is quite clear on that point: “
a challenge to the validity of this report should have been brought by way of an application for leave and judicial review of the report”. This position is in accordance with Hernandez (2005 CF 429) and Wajaras (2009 CF 200).
[FONT="][14] [/FONT]
Now in regard to the issue estoppel, the jurisprudence is clear:
The
Supreme Court of Canada noted in Angle, there are three elements that must be established to engage the doctrine of issue estoppel:
i) The same issue is being decided in each proceeding;
ii) The decision which raises the issue estoppel is a final decision; and
iii) The parties to the two proceedings are the same parties, or are their privies.
Angle v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248
[FONT="][15] [/FONT]
To determine if a person is a Convention refugee is a different issue than determining inadmissibility. The argument of Me Allen on estoppel fails and must be rejected.
[FONT="][16] [/FONT] I agree with Mr. Beaupr that a determination under paragraph 34(1)(f) of IRPA requires a two step examination.
[FONT="][17] [/FONT] The next question to address is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mrs. Sheikh was a member of the MQM or MQM-A. During her testimony, on July 16, 2009, one of the first questions that was put forward to Mrs. Sheikh was: have you ever been a member of any political party? Mrs. Sheikh spontaneously answered: MQM. She later on explained that she was personally asked by Dr. Imram Farooq – one of the co-founders and General Secretary of MQM – to join the organization because she was very popular as the person in charge of the All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organisation (APMSO) at her college during her years of study. From 1984 to 1988, she was, according to her own testimony, the first woman working for the party; she was in charge of the women's wing in Karachi. She organized meetings, talked about the party and promoted its electoral platform, distributed leaflets, prepared banners and also got involved at different levels of elections. She also explained that after 1988, she was only a member; that she was not in charge anymore. Me Allen also acknowledges, in his written submissions, that Mrs. Sheikh admits her membership in the MQM and MQM-A.
[FONT="][18] [/FONT] Therefore, I find that the there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mrs. Sheikh has been a member of the MQM.
[FONT="][19] [/FONT] Now, the next question to consider is whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM or MQM-A engaged in terrorism.
[FONT="][20] [/FONT] In Suresh, the Supreme Court of Canada provides a definition of “terrorism” that can be useful in analyzing the acts allegedly carried out by members or supporters of the MQM:
…“terrorism”… includes any act intended to cause death or bodily injury to a civilian or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its very nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.
[FONT="][21] [/FONT] Many of the actions, listed by Mr. Beaupr in his submissions or mentioned in the documentary evidence that comes from various credible sources, in which the MQM, the MQM‑A or some of its members were allegedly involved, over many years during the 1980's and 1990's, could be considered terrorist acts. It is perfectly clear that intimidation, when supported by violence, torture, assassinations, the use of secret detention centres and bomb attacks, figures among the acts that fall within the scope of the definition of terrorism when they blindly target the entire population or even mere political opponents who are not personally involved in the hostilities. Those different acts were clearly aimed at destabilising the government to bring about changes in the country through violent means.
[FONT="][22] [/FONT] The documentary evidence describes:
- intimidation, often accompanied by violence (M‑2, pp.7, 23 and 43; M-3, p.100; M-7, pp.143, 150 and 153; M-9, p.191; M-10, p.199; M-11, p.204; M-14, p.223; M-22, pp.344 and 345; M-22, p.370; M-25, p.372; M-26; M-28, p.415; M-29, p.422; M-30, p.431; M-31, p.447)
- torture (M-2, pp.7, 22, 23; M-3, p.98; M-28, pp.415 and 416)
- assassinations (M-2, pp. 40 to 43; M-3, p.84; M-3, pp.98 and 99; M‑6, pp.138 and 139; M-7, p.157; M-11, p.205; M-30, p.434)
- the use of secret detention centres and torture cells (M‑2, pp. 40 to 43; M-3, pp.84 and 100; M-11, p.204; M-25, p.373)
- bomb attacks (M‑6, p.138; M-7, p.149; M-26, p.384)
- and terrorist acts in general (M‑3, p.108; M‑6, pp.138 and 139; M-7, p.147)
[FONT="][23] [/FONT] In short, I find that terrorist acts as defined in
Suresh can be attributed to the MQM and the MQM‑A.
[FONT="][24] [/FONT]
Me Allen also made some arguments, in his written submissions, on paragraph 34(1)(
b) of IRPA regarding subversion by force against a democratic government. There was no mention of any allegation of subversion during the different hearings so it is not necessary to address this argument.
[FONT="][25] [/FONT] Finally, counsel argues that the escalation of violence happened after 1988, when she ceased all effective activity. To consider her engaged in terrorism, violence “
…would need to have been committed while she was in Pakistan, and while being a member in the said group”. It is important here to remember the wording of paragraph 34(1)(
f) of IRPA :
an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism. Following the jurisprudence, there would be no temporal component on the assessment of the terrorist activities of the organization. (
Al Yamani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1457, 304 F.T.R. 222) that position was recently confirmed in Gebreab, Bekele Mengistu v. M.S.P.P.C. (F.C. Imm-2579-09). So, the argument of Me Allen that the MQM was not involved in violence at the time of his client association with the organization has to be rejected.
[FONT="][26] [/FONT] Therefore, I conclude that, based on Mrs. Sheikh's testimony and on the careful analysis of the documentary evidence on the MQM and the MQM‑A, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mrs. Sheikh was a member of the MQM and the MQM-A and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that those organizations were engaged in acts of terrorism.
[FONT="][27] [/FONT] Therefore, paragraph 34(1)(
f) of the IRPA applies to Mrs. Sheikh, and I hereby issue a deportation order.
__________________________________
Louis Dub, Member
c.c. Claude Beaupr, counsel for the Minister
c.c. Me Joseph W. Allen, counsel for Mrs. Anila Sheikh
