Date: 20060519
Docket: IMM-6637-05
Citation: 2006 FC 607
Ottawa, Ontario, May 19, 2006
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIMON NOËL
BETWEEN:
RAVINDER
SINGH
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”) of a decision of the Refugee
Protection Division (“RPD”) dated October 13, 2005. This was a decision
dismissing the claim for refugee protection presented by Ravinder Singh
(“applicant”). According to the RPD, the applicant is not a Convention refugee
or a person in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of
the IRPA. The RPD based its decision on considerations related to the
applicant’s credibility.
I. Issue
[2]
The only
issue is the following:
-
Did the
RPD err in concluding the applicant was not credible?
II. Facts
[3]
The
applicant is of Indian origin. He was born in the state of Punjab, India.
[4]
On October
10, 2001, some persons stole his motorcycle and threatened him with a firearm.
The applicant then went home to discuss the matter with his family. Together
with his father, he decided to explain what happened to the village Sarpanch,
who recommended waiting until the next day before filing a complaint with the
police.
[5]
When he
returned home that evening, the police were already there. The applicant was
arrested, taken to the police station, and tortured for his imputed
participation in a terrorist group. The applicant was released on payment of a
bribe and as a result of intervention by his family and members of the village
council. He was treated by a doctor.
[6]
The
applicant was arrested, detained and tortured three other times: on February 1,
2002, April 26, 2003, and August 12, 2003. On each occasion, he was released in
circumstances similar to those in October 2001. The police went to the
applicant’s home on several occasions to harass and question family members.
[7]
In June
2004, the applicant met with the village Sarpanch to bring charges against the
police. Shortly thereafter, the police became aware of his intentions and
returned to his family’s home. Since the applicant was not there, the police
demanded that he be surrendered to them, all the while threatening to kill him.
[8]
The
applicant fled to Delhi, where he met a human smuggler. He arrived in Canada on
September 19, 2004 and made a claim for refugee protection on January 28, 2005.
III. Analysis
[9]
As far as
the applicant’s credibility is concerned, the RPD concluded as follows (I
include in parentheses the relevant pages of the hearing transcript and the RPD
record):
-
In
general, the RPD noted there was a lack of evidence on record showing that the
police were convinced the applicant had associated with one or several
terrorist groups;
-
Likewise,
the RPD noted that the applicant submitted little credible or plausible
evidence on the whole showing that he was the victim of harassment and that he
was detained and brutalized;
-
The RPD
did not believe that the police would suddenly start to torment the applicant
considering he admitted that neither he nor members of his family had any
connections with terrorist groups and that they had lived in the Punjab for
years without any problems (RPD record, pages 203, 215, 224, 225, 227);
-
The RPD
found it was not credible that the applicant could, within one hour, have his
motorcycle stolen at gunpoint, return home two kilometres from there, drink a
glass of water, discuss matters with his father, walk to the Sarpanch’s home,
wake the Sarpanch, discuss matters with him and agree to make a complaint only
the next day, and finally return home, where the police were resolutely waiting
for him (RPD record, pages 205 to 216);
-
The RPD
found it implausible that the applicant was unable to give any information
about the identity of the persons who stole his motorcycle, the reasons leading
the police to accuse him of being associated with a group of terrorists, or the
connection he was suspected of having with these groups (RPD record, pages 203 et
seq., 217, 222, 233);
-
The RPD
found it implausible that the persons who participated in having the applicant
released on four occasions did not ask any questions about the reasons for
which the police were after the applicant (RPD record, page 226);
-
The RPD
was of the opinion that the applicant’s behaviour was not consistent with that
of a person who fears being persecuted, because everything the applicant did
was for the purpose of going to Canada (and nowhere else);
-
The
applicant let a considerable amount of time elapse before acting when he noted
that he was late in obtaining the documents required for his trip (RPD record,
pages 195 to 201, 234 to 237), given that he alleges having been savagely beaten
by the police and fears that the police would come after him once again;
-
The
applicant delayed making a claim for refugee protection once he arrived in
Canada, and his explanations on this point are vague (RPD record, pages 237 to
241);
-
Finally,
the RPD noted that the applicant applied for a passport before the date on
which his problems began (RPD record, pages 241 to 243).
[10]
Having
reread all the relevant documents and heard the parties, I conclude that the
RPD did not make any error in concluding that the applicant was not credible,
considering the applicable standard of review, which is that of patent
unreasonableness (Thavarathinam v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1469,
[2003] F.C.J. No. 1866 (F.C.A.), at paragraph 10; Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 732 (F.C.A.),
at paragraph 4). Several elements seriously undermine the applicant’s
credibility, and he had the chance to give his version of the facts concerning
each one of these elements. Although some of the elements on which the decision
is based are less convincing, and even though the RPD committed minor errors of
fact, I do not believe that the overall reasoning is affected or that
intervention is warranted. The decision is, on the whole, correct.
[11]
In his
written submissions and at the hearing, the applicant claimed that he had left
India mainly because he had been persecuted by the police as a result of the
complaint he wanted to make to the authorities in June 2004. The applicant
claimed to have evidence to support his complaint, that is, a letter from his
lawyer in India, as well as his medical certificates and an affidavit from the
village Sarpanch (RPD record, pages 62 to 65). In doing so, it seems that the
applicant is seeking to isolate one of the alleged grounds for leaving India
from the other facts in his story. Apparently, the applicant believes he can
convince the Court that the RPD did not deal with a major aspect of the claim
in its decision.
[12]
However, a
study of the record shows it is not quite clear that what prompted the
applicant to leave India was above all the episode in June 2004. In fact,
several elements seem to show quite the contrary, as the applicant alleged
before the RPD that he had left India because of the torture suffered in
detention and because of his imputed connections with terrorists groups:
-
The
narrative included in the applicant’s Personal Information Form (PIF) (RPD
record, pages 20 to 21) shows that he was “fed [up] from this routine”, referring
to the multiple arrests and tortures,
-
The crux
of the applicant’s narrative recounts his torture and detention at the hands of
the authorities (RPD record, pages 20 to 21);
-
At the
hearing, the applicant stated that he decided to permanently leave India in
June 2002 and that he made this decision because of the harassment he suffered
because of his imputed connections with terrorists groups (RPD record, pages 95
and 201);
-
When he
was questioned about the events of June 2004, the applicant had a chance to
give many details but did not at any time mention that his complaint to the
police was the trigger for his departure from India (RPD record,
page 236);
-
In his
submissions at the hearing before the RPD, the counsel for the applicant
emphasized the events in 2002 and not on those in 2004 to explain the
applicant’s decision to leave India (RPD record, page 250).
In this context, it is quite understandable that the RPD did
not deal with the June 2004 events in more detail. In my opinion, the RPD took into
consideration all the relevant facts, including the applicant’s alleged attempt
to bring charges against the police and the evidence submitted by the
applicant. In fact, this was mentioned by the RPD at page 5 of its decision.
Therefore, the RPD was aware of the applicant’s alleged attempt to bring
charges against the police. By emphasizing on judicial review one facet of his
claim that seemed of less importance to the RPD, the applicant belatedly
introduced a new version of the facts and only added to the confusion inherent
in his narrative. In addition, even if this new version were held to be
accurate, the applicant’s behaviour, as the RPD noted, was nevertheless
inconsistent with that of a person who fears being persecuted.
[13]
In all,
the RPD rendered a well-supported decision concerning the applicant’s
credibility and assessed the evidence as submitted. The elements invoked in
support of the decision seem to be quite sufficient, and in this context I do
not think that it was necessary for the RPD to specifically deal with the
medical certificates, the letter from the applicant’s lawyer in India, or the
affidavit of the village Sarpanch (see Florea v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598).
[14]
The
parties were asked to suggest a question for certification, but no question was
suggested.
[15]
For these
reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed, and no question is
certified.
JUDGMENT
THE COURTS ORDERS THAT:
- The application for
judicial review be dismissed, and no question is certified.
“Simon
Noël”
Certified
true translation
Michael
Palles
Email this Content