Date: 20110722
Docket: IMM-7456-10
Citation: 2011 FC 925
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, July 22, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice
Harrington
BETWEEN:
|
|
AMANDEEP KAUR
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
This judicial review
raises four issues frequently considered in claims for refugee protection in
Canada, namely:
a.
Is the applicant
credible?
b.
Considering the facts
to be true, is the applicant a United Nations Convention refugee or a person in
need of international protection?
c.
Can the applicant count
on state protection in her country of origin?
d.
Can the applicant avail
herself of an internal flight alternative in her country of origin?
[2]
This is an application
for judicial review of a decision of a member of the Refugee Protection
Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), dated
November 23, 2010, in which the member found that the applicant was
neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. Ms. Kaur
is a young Sikh woman who lived in the Punjab, in India. She allegedly made a
donation to two women linked to the Guru Asra Trust. The police subsequently
contacted the applicant to discuss the donation and asked her to testify that
the two women had extorted money from her, which she refused to do. As a
result, using coercive persuasion, the police attempted to intimidate her and
to extract a false confession from her. Ms. Kaur was allegedly tortured
and abused by the police. The panel did not find the applicant to be credible.
[3]
Counsel for the
applicant seriously called into question the panel’s finding that Ms. Kaur
was not credible. The RPD member allegedly argued that the applicant had been
targeted by the police because of her donation, while the real reason for the
police’s harassment of her was the police wanting her to provide a false
testimony, which she refused to do.
[4]
To further bolster the
general non-credibility finding, the member relied on a microscopic examination
of peripheral matters and clearly erred on certain points. He stated that a
certain document was not dated even though it was. He suggested that the
applicant had travelled a great deal even though that was not the case.
[5]
If the member had found
that the applicant was credible, he might have reached the conclusion that she
had reason to fear being persecuted or even tortured.
[6]
The member also found
that the applicant had not rebutted the presumption of the availability of state
protection, despite the fact that the police itself was responsible for the
persecution and even the torture. I do not have to rule on the issue of state
protection since the panel’s decision on the availability of an internal flight
alternative is reasonable.
[7]
In any event, the
member found that Ms. Kaur had an internal flight alternative in Delhi,
Mumbai and Calcutta. When she was asked why she would not be able to live in
one of the three internal flight alternatives proposed, she gave as the sole
reason the fact that the police would be able to find her regardless of where
she lived in India. The member found that there was no evidence to support the
applicant’s claim that she is afraid of being persecuted in such a manner. The
local police, or the national police, would have to willing and, indeed, able
to do so. The applicant gave no explanation to justify why the proposed flight
alternatives were unsuitable. The record shows that there are over 500,000 Sikhs
living in Delhi. Moreover, the India: UK Border Agency Country of Origin
Information Report, issued in January 2010, states that Sikhs can move
freely in India, that there are no checks at the various crossing points, even
if people are arriving from the Punjab, and that the local police do not have
the necessary resources or language skills required to carry out such checks.
[8]
The member ruled as
follows:
The panel finds that the claimant has an internal flight alternative
in any of the cities mentioned above should she return to India and it would be
reasonable for her to do so.
[9]
I find the member’s
ruling to be reasonable and separate from the question of the applicant’s
credibility. It should therefore not be interfered with by this Court. The
availability of an internal flight alternative is determinative (see Sarker
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 353, at
paragraph 5).
ORDER
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN;
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be
dismissed. There is no serious question of general importance to certify.
“Sean Harrington”
Certified true
translation
Johanna Kratz
Email this Content