Date: 20071005
Docket: IMM-868-07
Citation: 2007
FC 1034
Ottawa, Ontario, October 5, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington
BETWEEN:
CHINDER SINGH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
In
determining that Chinder Singh is not a convention refugee and is not a person
in need of international protection, the Panel of the Refugee Protection
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board said he was not credible, or was
not to be believed, or that his story was not plausible, or that he was not a
reliable witness, at least 14 times. There comes a point when it becomes
apparent that someone is looking for reasons not to believe. So it is in this
case.
[2]
Counsel
for Mr. Singh suggests that there are 16 reasons why the decision should be set
aside. Perhaps there are not quite 16, but most of the findings of fact which
led to the decision are patently unreasonable. The claim was rejected because
he could not satisfactorily speculate as to why third parties did or did not do
certain things, because certain information was not in his personal information
form and because certain third party documentation was not sufficiently detailed
to suit the Panel’s taste.
[3]
Mr. Singh
left India for Scotland in 1991. His refugee claim was
ultimately rejected and he was returned to India in May 2004. Unfortunately, we do not
have copy of the decision.
[4]
The basis
of his claim in the U.K. was that the Indian police
thought that he was assisting Sikh militants. He says he was tortured, and
forced to sign blank pieces of paper. His injuries required medical attention.
[5]
He
returned to India on a special travel permit
which should have specifically brought him the attention of Indian authorities.
He had no problem getting out of the airport in Delhi, perhaps because his wife and an agent bribed
someone.
[6]
The
essence of his application in Canada is that the Indian police
arrested him in December 2004 and accused him of sending money to militants. He
was badly beaten and then medically treated over a two-week period including
one day in the hospital. With the help of some friends, he was released and
made his way here.
[7]
In his
personal information form (PIF), Mr. Singh outlined the reasons why he went to Scotland, but he did not mention what
if anything happened while he was there from 1991 to 2004. The Panel questioned
him about these years and was informed that for the first years the police had
continued to visit his family, and had said to them that he had gone to Pakistan for further training. It
would have been better, as the Panel says, that this information had been set
out in his PIF. However, it is a stretch to say this shortcoming proves he is a
liar.
[8]
He said
his family informed him that they did not tell the authorities where he was
except to say that he was outside India.
The Panel could not understand why the family would not inform the police that
he had gone to the U.K. Why should the family tell
the police where he was? Country reports indicate that the U.K. was a hotbed of fundraising. Knowledge
of his exact whereabouts could well have exposed him to an “agent provocateur”.
[9]
The real
issue is whether he was tortured by the police in India in December 2004.
[10]
The Panel does
not understand how it could come about that he could leave the airport in Delhi in May 2004 and be left alone by the
police until they suddenly accosted him eight months later. He was asked how it
was plausible that the police would not raid his home or arrest him in the
meantime. How could he possibly know what was running through the minds of the
police, or what information they had and when they received it?
[11]
He had a
brief letter from a doctor in India mentioning he was treated at
times which correspond with the alleged police brutality. The Panel said the:
Medical report gives a general overview
for kind of injuries or the complaints the claimant had and the treatment
given. It does not specify for each incident the relevant injuries and the
treatment… The panel gives no probative value to the medical report. This
further undermines his credibility.
[12]
How does
the fact that the Panel would like a more detailed report undermine Mr. Singh’s
credibility?
[13]
In his
PIF, he says that when the police detained him in December 2004 they stripped him
naked and beat him with leather belts and wooden sticks. During his testimony
he mentioned that they also ran rollers over his body. “His PIF does not say
they put rollers all over his body… He is not credible”. Exactly how much
detail was required in order to satisfy this Panel?
[14]
He had no
x-rays taken in India because he said he had no
time. The Panel thought he was not credible because if he were treated from
January 8 to January 24, surely he would have time for an x-ray. Perhaps the
Panel knows how long it takes to arrange an x-ray in India. The record certainly does not give the
answer.
[15]
A
municipal councillor wrote a letter saying how she knew Mr. Singh over the
years and had helped get him out of India
in 2005. Since the author stated she was fully aware of the claimant’s
problems, the Panel said the letter lacked in several specifics.
For example, how many times and exactly
when the claimant was arrested, particularly for his last arrest on December
31, 2004, his hospitalizations and/or medical treatments, when released from
each detention and foremost the condition of his release from each detention….The
panel assigns no probative value to the letter and it does not believe the
claimant.
The municipal councillor did not claim to be a doctor and
should not be taken to task for not writing a 15-page letter, when to a
reasonable decision maker one or two pages would do.
[16]
X-rays
were taken in Montreal. The doctor reported that Mr.
Singh suffers from mild osteoarthritis. However, he could not confirm that the
chronic pains in his knees were caused by the alleged acts of violence. On the
other hand, the doctor does not say that his condition was inconsistent with
acts of violence. How does this undermine credibility?
[17]
Mr.
Singh’s claim was rejected because “…he failed to establish the
well-foundedness of his fear with credible evidence.” It appears no amount of
evidence short of a confession by the police would have satisfied the Panel that
he was credible, and even a confession would have been suspect.
[18]
Although I
am granting the application for judicial review, I strongly urge Mr. Singh to
come up with copy of the United
Kingdom decision
rejecting his claim.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the
application is granted and referred back to a differently constituted panel for
redetermination. There is no question of general importance to certify.
“Sean
Harrington”
Email this Content