Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-3119-96

     IMM-3119-96

B E T W E E N:

PARMINDER SINGH SANDHU

AMRITPAL SINGH SANDHU

Applicants

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,

Wednesday, April 23rd, 1997, as edited)

LUTFY, J.:

     This application for judicial review of the negative determination of the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("Tribunal") raises two issues:      a) the Tribunal's negative findings concerning the claimants' credibility; and      b) its conclusions concerning the internal flight alternative available to the claimants.

     In Hilo v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 199, the Court of Appeal stated that in assessing credibility, the Tribunal is: "... under a duty to give its reasons for casting doubt upon the appellant's credibility in clear and unmistakable terms". In other words, a panel cannot couch its findings of credibility in vague and general terms.

     In its reasons in the present case, the Tribunal set out a number of discrepancies in the claimants' presentation. Two are of particular significance. In their personal information forms, neither claimant asserts that their father was arrested with Parminder Singh Sandhu on February 13, 1995. At the hearing, however, the latter clearly stated at least twice that on February 13, 1995 his father was arrested with him and detained for three days.

     Similarly, in his personal information form, this claimant stated: "On both occasions, I was tortured and accused of being a Sikh militant or terrorist or having information concerning the identities, activities and whereabouts of other people suspected of being terrorists." Yet, at the panel hearing, the claimant on more than one occasion asserted that police interest in him was with respect to his relationship with Mr. Jassi.

     Even if I accept the arguments of the claimants' counsel concerning another plausible interpretation that might have been drawn on the same evidence, I am satisfied that the Tribunal's findings concerning the claimants' credibility are supported by their testimony as recorded in the transcript filed with the Court. In my view, these findings are stated in "clear and unmistakable terms" within the meaning of Hilo.

     Similarly, the Tribunal's analysis concerning the internal flight alternative discloses no reviewable error. Its analysis of the documentary evidence, its focus on the claimants' young age, their physical fitness, their experience as farmers and the extent of agriculture as part of the economic activity in India are all consistent with their conclusions of an internal flight alternative within India for these specific claimants.

     The Tribunal's analysis is fully consistent with principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706. In addition, the Tribunal's determination is consistent with the Court of Appeal's decision in Saini v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 151 N.R. 239, a case with a remarkable factual resemblance with the one at hand.

     For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. The Court agrees with counsel that this is not a case which warrants the certification of a serious question.

         Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

April 25, 1997