Docket: IMM-5624-15
Citation:
2016 FC 787
[ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, July 11, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable
Mr. Justice Annis
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SANDEEP SINGH
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
This is an application for judicial review made
under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA] of a decision made by the Refugee Protection
Division (RPD) on November 19, 2015, dismissing the applicant’s claim
for refugee protection. The applicant wishes to have the RPD’s decision set
aside and referred for reconsideration before a different panel.
[2]
For the reasons that follow, the application is
dismissed.
II.
The facts
[3]
The applicant is a citizen of India. In
January 2010, he began working for the Shiromani Akali Dal
(Amritsar) political party. Members of the National Indian Congress party (the
Congress members) objected to his participating in Amritsar activities and
threatened him with serious consequences if he refused to join their party.
[4]
On December 8, 2010, the applicant was
beaten by four Congress members, who threatened to kill him if he did not join
their party. The police refused to intervene and warned the applicant that he
would be charged with having filed false accusations if he did not leave the
police station.
[5]
On February 27, 2011, the applicant was
again abused by Congress members who were trying to recruit him.
[6]
On March 16, 2011, the applicant left India
with the help of an officer. He passed through several countries, including the
United States, and eventually came to Canada one year later, on
February 13, 2012.
[7]
The applicant claims that he was also informed
after he arrived in Canada that his family was harassed by Congress members and
by the police following a complaint filed against the applicant by Congress
members.
[8]
In June 2013, Congress members allegedly
detained and tortured the applicant’s brother to uncover his whereabouts and to
obtain information on other militants. Congress members also accused his
brother of having ties to militants.
[9]
Following those events, the applicant’s brother
apparently immigrated to the United States, whereas their family allegedly fled
their home to hide in different locations.
III.
Impugned decision
[10]
The RPD concluded that the applicant’s claims
regarding the incidents that occurred before he arrived in Canada were
credible. However, the RPD did not believe the applicant’s story about the
threats and harassment of his family, which he allegedly learned about after he
arrived in Canada. The RPD noted several omissions and contradictions between
the applicant’s story and his testimony during the hearing, which undermined
his credibility.
[11]
The RPD then evaluated the internal flight
alternative (IFA) to New Delhi. First, the RPD found that the applicant had not
demonstrated that Congress members allegedly had the intent or capacity to
locate him in New Delhi, nor that the police officers were apparently in
collusion with Congress members in his village. Second, the RPD noted that the
applicant had not raised any argument about the impossibility of seeking refuge
in New Delhi.
[12]
The RPD therefore concluded that 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.
IV.
Issues
[13]
The applicant raised the following issues:
1. Did the RPD evaluate the applicant’s credibility reasonably?
2. Did the RPD assess the IFA reasonably?
V.
Analysis
[14]
In this case, the standard of review is the
standard of reasonableness for both the issue of credibility and the IFA
findings: Lopez Martinez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2010 FC 550, at paragraph 14; Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9.
[15]
The applicant claims that the RPD failed to
assess his testimony in its entirety and focused on the fine details to the
extent that they overlooked the vital points of his story. However, it instead
appears to me that the RPD’s decision is very carefully balanced and it
reasonably details the applicant’s various allegations and the reasons as to
why his credibility was called into question with respect to the events that
occurred after he left India.
[16]
It is well established that the determination of
a refugee claimant’s credibility is the heartland of the RPD’s jurisdiction (Tosha
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2005 FC 1741,
at paragraph 21; Eze v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
2016 FC 601, at paragraph 12; Abdullahi v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 260, at
paragraph 22).
[17]
The RPD noted several inconsistencies, omissions
and contradictions in the applicant’s story, which I restate here:
•
The applicant waited two years before he amended
his Personal Information Form (amended PIF) that he filed the day of the
hearing, to include the allegations of harassment against his family. The RPD
did not accept his excuse whereby he was dependent on an over-busy, paid
translator, given that he had been represented by counsel since 2012, and
that he learned of these incidents in 2013;
•
In addition, the applicant delayed in filing the
affidavit from the local sarpanch, which was filed 7 days before the
hearing, violating the rules which require a 10-day minimum time frame, even
though he was in regular contact with his parents and other members of his
family in India;
•
The PIF amended at the start of the hearing was
inconsistent with the applicant’s testimony, since there was no mention of his
family being beaten twice, nor of his father being arrested and tortured.
Moreover, the affidavit from the local sarpanch also does not mention these
important facts. Consequently, the RPD concluded that the claim that his father
had been arrested and tortured was not true;
•
The applicant testified that his brother had
been arrested the first time that the police had harassed his family, whereas
his documents instead state that the police officers began harassing the
family, then the situation worsened in June 2013 when his brother was
arrested;
•
At the hearing, the applicant stated that his
family had been beaten, whereas in his story, he said that they were harassed;
•
There is also a contradiction in the number of
times the brother was allegedly tortured. In his testimony, the applicant said
that his brother had been tortured twice, yet he only noted one incident in his
story;
•
According to the applicant’s story, he said that
his parents had fled the home right after his brother’s release in
June 2013, but he testified that the police had resumed harassing them
after his brother left for the United States in 2013, which would have
been difficult in light of the fact that his parents were supposedly in flight;
•
It does not seem reasonable that the applicant’s
parents had not tried to prove to the police that their son had indeed been in
Canada to avoid being persecuted; moreover, the applicant’s behaviour of not
trying to provide his parents with any evidence to this effect is inconsistent
with the allegations that his parents were allegedly harassed;
[18]
The applicant’s claimed excuse for filing the
documents late was that the guidelines only impose a time limit of 10 days
before the date of the hearing in which to file them. However, the general
understanding is that, apart from minor amendments, important modifications to
the PIF should be done promptly after they are discovered,. I also noted that
the applicant’s evidence was only filed seven days before the hearing
date. In any event, the negative findings concerning credibility are based on
the applicant’s poor excuses regarding the time limit, and not on the time
limit itself.
[19]
In light of the significant number of
inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions described above, I am of the
opinion that the RPD’s findings are based on the evidence stating that the
applicant is not perceived as a Sikh separatist and is not the subject of a
complaint by Congress members, leaving the impression that he is wanted by the
police. It should be noted that the applicant never filed a copy of the
complaint in question.
[20]
The RPD’s findings regarding an internal flight
alternative are therefore reasonable. I am also dismissing the applicant’s
claims whereby the RPD did not take into account application of
section 144 of the Indian Penal Code, which requires landlord
owners to register information on tenants with the local police stations in New
Delhi.
[21]
If he is not wanted by the police, it is
unlikely that Congress members could find the applicant in New Delhi, even
through a criminal records check. The RPD noted that if records check
operations do exist in India, the documentary evidence shows, however, that
their legal structure is inconsistent on one hand and, on the other hand, that
implementation of this structure is incoherent and disordered.
[22]
The RPD concluded that it was speculative for
such information to be reported to the police in New Delhi. The RPD pointed out
that the documentary evidence states that police officers limited checks to the
list of wanted persons in their possession. In light of the overall working
conditions and situation of the security forces, the RPD found that it would
also be speculative to assume that the applicant’s name would be brought to the
attention of the local police in his village through this means. Moreover, the
applicant’s political activities were limited and local, and he has not been
involved in political causes since he left India over four years ago.
[23]
Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that
the applicant would benefit from an internal flight alternative to New Delhi.
VI.
Conclusion
[24]
The application for judicial review is
dismissed; The RPD’s conclusions regarding the applicant’s level of credibility
about the events that occurred after he left India and the internal flight
alternative are reasonable.
Email this Content