CAT/C/45/D/333/2007
Canada that he had destroyed his travel documents in Iceland before boarding the ship to
Canada, and then asserting in his Personal Information Form that he had destroyed his
passport in Germany. He also admitted to having made refugee claims under different false
names in Germany and Norway. The purported identity documents faxed by his wife from
Dubai are insufficiently reliable to establish his identity.
4.7 The State party also submits that the Board’s doubts about the complainant’s arrest
and mistreatment in 1995 are well-founded. It states that the complainant failed to mention
his arrest in his first interview with an immigration officer and provided conflicting
testimony to the Board, first saying that the threats of mistreatment were not carried out,
then testifying that needles had been inserted under his nails. He had also complained that
he had blood in his urine and lungs, but had no medical evidence to corroborate any of his
allegations. He did not mention his father’s arrest in the interview or interviews conducted
by Canadian immigration officials after his arrival in Canada. It notes the complainant’s
claim that he was approached by an Uzbek investigator while in Dubai and was threatened
that his visa would be interfered with, if he did not return to Uzbekistan to provide evidence
against ethnic activists. Finally, the State party submits that his attempt to mislead asylum
authorities in other states cast doubt on the reliability of his allegations made to Canadian
tribunals.
4.8
The State party refers to the Committee’s recent jurisprudence involving prospective
deportations to Iraq3 and Iran4 and notes that the problematic human rights situation in
Uzbekistan is not in itself sufficient to substantiate the complainant’s allegation that he
would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture in the event of his return. It refers
to the complainant’s claim that he was at risk of torture in Uzbekistan because he is an
ethnic Tatar and submits that none of the main reports on the human rights situation in
Uzbekistan suggest that Tatars are at particular risk of torture in Uzbekistan.
Complainant’s comments
5.1
On 7 July 2008, the complainant sought to refute the observations of the State party.
He argues that he did not receive the decisions on H&C and PRRA dated 11 May 2006, for
more than six months. He claims he received them only after complaining to the Federal
Court and after he had received a removal order dated 18 October 2006 Both decisions
(H&C and PRRA) were decided by the same immigration official. He claims that he indeed
applied for a stay of his removal order and for judicial review of both PRRA and H&C
decisions. The case file does not contain a copy of his application for judicial review of the
H&C decision.
5.2
The complainant also claims that his credibility and trustworthiness were put in
doubt by his lawyer, who was provided by Legal Aid Canada. He claims that his lawyer did
not act in his interest and did not provide all the necessary facts and documents to support
his claims. He allegedly refused to represent him in the Federal Court.
5.3
The complainant notes the submission by the State party that he failed to mention
his arrest in his initial interview with an immigration officer, and provided conflicting
information to the Board, first saying that the threats of mistreatment were not carried out,
then testifying that nails had been inserted under his nails. He claims that he does not
remember whether he had mentioned this detail or not. He could have possibly shown them
his fingers and was given consent to do that. He claims that the Immigration and Refugee
Board were satisfied with what they had seen at that time. He could not provide medical
3
4
M.R.A. v. Sweden, 286/2006 (2006)
S.P.A. v. Canada, 282/2005 (2006)
5