The court held that the Board erred in its attempt to interpret Pakistani martial law. Further, that the summons was legal since it was issued under Martial Law Order No. 12. and signed by the sub-martial law administrator. The grounds for the summons were however vague: "shall not be communicated to any person detained or whose movements or activities are restricted".
The Board also erred in finding that there was "great uncertainty" and "lack of explanation" regarding the summons. The Board had ignored evidence it had found credible. Particularly, that the applicant was a member and actively involved in the P.P.P., while a student in Pakistan and the summons was in connection with P.P.P. membership. Neither Applicant's "minor" role (as described by the Board) nor his length of absence from Pakistan was found relevant in light of uncontradicted evidence of ongoing persecution of former P.P.P. members.
Convention refugee status; well-founded fear of persecution; evidence; credible witness.
As a student in Pakistan, the applicant was actively involved in the affairs of the Pakistan People’s Party (P.P.P). He came to Canada as a student. While in Canada, martial law was declared in Pakistan, and a summons was issued for him to appear before a martial law court. This summons triggered his application for convention refugee status.
The Immigration Appeal Board (the Board) found him to be a credible witness but dismissed his application. The Board doubted the legal validity of the summons and authority of the Special Military Court in Pakistan. This was an application to review and set aside the decision of the Board.
The matter was referred back to the Board for redetermination.
The Board erred in ignoring evidence it had found to be credible. If the Board had not committed the above errors, it would have concluded that the applicant satisfied the definition of convention refugee.