Docket: IMM-1889-25
Citation: 2025 FC 1985
Ottawa, Ontario, December 17, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Saint-Fleur
|
BETWEEN: |
|
BHAWNA SIKKA
PRISH SIKKA
KUNAL SIKKA |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated January 20, 2025 [Decision] dismissing the Applicants’ appeal of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD]. The RPD rejected the Applicants’ claims for refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
[2] For the reasons which follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
II. Background Facts
[3] The Applicants, Mrs. Bhawna Sikka, her husband Prish Sikka, and their son Kunal Sikka [Applicants], are all citizens of India. They are Hindus from Jalandhar in Punjab State. They fear persecution in India due to false allegations of their support for a terrorist and anti-national organization. In particular, the Applicants were accused of supporting Khalistan-related militancy. The Applicants’ home and the homes of their family members have been raided by police. Mrs. Sikka’s brother has also been subject to torture and detention by the police because he attended a Farmers’ Protest with a Sikh friend. They were stopped at a checkpoint and detained in Ambala, Haryana by the police. The Applicants secured the release of the brother through a bribe. In August 2021, the Applicants were detained and tortured by the police and Mrs. Sikka was sexually assaulted.
[4] On October 22, 2024, the RPD rejected the Applicants’ claim for refugee protection, concluding the Applicants have a viable Internal Flight Alternative [IFA] in Bengaluru, India.
III. Decision Under Review
[5] The RAD dismissed the Applicants’ appeals and upheld the conclusion of the RPD that they have a viable IFA.
A. The Police Would Not Be Motivated to Pursue the Applicants in Bengaluru
[6] The RAD concluded the police would not be motivated to pursue the Applicants if they relocated to Bengaluru. The RAD determined the police do not genuinely believe the Applicants are terrorists or militants. Instead, they detained the Applicants (and then released them) because of their financial motivations.
[7] The RAD further found the Applicants’ profiles are inconsistent with those perceived by the authorities as Khalistan supporters, terrorists, or militants and the objective evidence indicates it would be unlikely the authorities would be interested in using counterterrorism resources to target the Applicants.
[8] Regarding Mrs. Sikka’s brother, the RAD determined there was no evidence to suggest he was formally investigated, arrested, or charged for terrorism or militancy.
[9] Given the seriousness with which Indian authorities treat alleged terrorists and the fact there were no formal searches, investigations, charges, or records of the Applicants in police databases, the RAD concluded the Applicants’ detention was likely extrajudicial. The RAD noted it was speculative to assume the police would travel to the proposed IFA location to harm the Applicants and to silence Mrs. Sikka and prevent her from pursuing justice in respect of the sexual assault. The RAD further noted there is no evidence of any threats or comments to that effect were made by the authorities.
B. Reasonableness
[10] The RAD determined the RPD was correct to determine the proposed IFA location is an objectively reasonable city for the Applicants to relocate. The RPD properly assessed the Applicants’ profiles in light of the country condition evidence and noted the Applicants had not proven the conditions in the proposed IFA location would jeopardize their lives or safety, or that relocation would be unduly harsh.
[11] The RAD considered that the documentary evidence indicates Indian law allows for movement within the country, free compulsory education, and has a public healthcare system. Bengaluru, India is a large city of over 10 million people where unemployment and crime rates are relatively low. While there is a lack of community supports and family, the RAD determined the Applicants’ education, work experience, languages, age, health, and family status would allow them to overcome the difficulties associated with relocation. Evidence of their financial situation was not before the RAD. The RAD further noted the documentary evidence highlighted by counsel for the Applicants were concerned with issues and profiles inconsistent with the Applicants’ circumstances.
[12] The RAD acknowledged the issue of gender-based violence in India, but noted the risk is generally greater for women who are single, homeless, widowed, illiterate, or are of a low socioeconomic status. The RAD concluded these risks are mitigated due to the differences between Mrs. Sikka’s profile and the profiles of women at a higher risk of violence.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[13] Respectfully, the only issue to be determined is whether the Decision was reasonable.
[14] The parties concur, and I agree, the standard of review is reasonableness. In this respect, the role of the reviewing court is to examine the decision maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”
and is “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 85-86 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 64). A decision will be reasonable if, when read as a whole and taking into account the administrative setting, it bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility (Vavilov at paras 91-95, 99-100).
V. Relevant Dispositions
[15] Section 96 of IRPA defines the qualities of a Convention refugee:
Convention refugee
|
Définition de réfugié
|
96 A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,
|
96 A qualité de réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui, craignant avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques :
|
(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or
|
a) soit se trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays;
|
(b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.
|
b) soit, si elle n’a pas de nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut y retourner.
|
[16] Subsection 97(1) of IRPA defines the conditions for an applicant to be considered a person in need of Canada’s protection:
Person in need of protection
|
Personne à protéger
|
97 (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally
|
97 (1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée :
|
(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or
|
a) soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la torture au sens de l’article premier de la Convention contre la torture;
|
(b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
|
b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant :
|
(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,
|
(i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays,
|
(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country,
|
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas,
|
(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and
|
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
|
(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.
|
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l’incapacité du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
|
VI. Analysis
A. The Decision Is Reasonable
[17] The Applicants bear the onus of demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution exists throughout the country of reference when an IFA is raised (Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (CA), [1994] 1 FC 589 at 594, 597). The Tribunal must be satisfied there is no serious possibility the Applicants will be persecuted in the proposed IFA and it would not be unreasonable for the Applicants to seek refuge there (Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (CA), [1992] 1 FC 706 at 711; Ohwofasa v Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2020 FC 266 at paras 17-23).
[18] The Applicants submit the RAD’s conclusion they will be safe in the IFA location is unreasonable as the RAD failed to grapple with their submissions. While the RAD determined the authorities have the means to locate the Applicants, they do not have the motivation to do so. According to their submissions, the Applicants submit this conclusion was largely rooted in the RAD’s determination the police do not believe they are genuinely linked to militancy or terrorism and are thus not motivated to pursue them in the IFA location. For the Applicants, the RAD committed a reviewable error by failing to address their arguments on appeal that the subjective evidence pointed to the opposite conclusion.
[19] More specifically, the Applicants argued before the RAD that the RPD did not appropriately weigh the three supporting affidavits which indicate the police were attempting to “hunt down”
the Applicants because of their involvement in riots and antinational activities, as well as their association with militants and antinational elements. The Applicants claim, while the RAD considered these affidavits in the Decision, it did so only after concluding the police did not genuinely believe they were militants or terrorists. They submit the affidavits should have been assessed by the RAD before it came to this conclusion.
[20] The Respondent claims the Applicants’ allegations that the RAD failed to consider their appeal submissions on the affidavits is clearly unfounded and without merit. While the Decision does not have to include all of the arguments, a reading of the RAD’s reasons shows that the RAD clearly considered the Applicants’ submissions on the three affidavits. The fact that the RAD did not agree with the Applicants’ arguments does not mean it failed to consider them. The Respondent argues the Applicants are arguing that, since the affidavits say the police alleged they were associated with militants and antinational elements during the raids, then this must be what the police believes.
[21] A failure to address an applicant’s relevant and central argument is a reviewable error on judicial review (Canada (Attorney General) v Zalys, 2020 FCA 81 at paras 91-95). This is in line with the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance in Vavilov at paragraph 127 where the Court explicitly noted the requirement for an administrative decision maker’s reasons to “meaningfully account for the central issues and concerns raised by the parties.”
In this case, the RAD did address the Applicants’ argument.
[22] Specifically, the RAD did engage with the three affidavits provided by the Applicant’s father, uncle, and a municipal counsellor. The RAD considered the content of these affidavits and presumed them to be true. Notably, a section of the RAD’s reasons composed of several paragraphs was dedicated to their analysis, even referring directly to counsel’s appeal submissions. The RAD did consider that the police accused the Applicants of involvement with anti-national activities. The Applicants reference visits by police to their family home since their departure from India as evidence the police would be motivated to pursue them. During these visits, their family members were harassed and threatened, and the police accused the Applicants of involvement with terrorist organizations.
[23] The RAD concluded the raids or police visits, as described in the affidavits, were motivated by corruption and financial reasons and not by a belief the Applicants are terrorists. According to the RAD’s assessment, the affidavits lacked information necessary to conclude whether the police were pursuing the Applicants in another state, if the police from another state were targeting them, or if those police forces were working together. These findings are reasonable.
[24] The RAD did engage with the Applicants’ arguments and the affidavits. The RAD reasonably found that the actions of the police do not demonstrate a genuine belief the Applicants are terrorists nor establish the police are motivated to pursue the Applicants in Bengaluru. I agree with the Respondent, the Applicants have not demonstrated that the order in which evidence is assessed by the RAD is unreasonable nor have they pointed to an authority to this effect. The assessment of the affidavits was completed in view of all the evidence. It was reasonable for the RAD to do so.
[25] The RAD is required to determine whether an agent of harm has both the means and the motivation to pursue the Applicants in the IFA location. Here, while the RAD determined the authorities have the means to locate the Applicants, it was reasonably concluded the authorities do not have the motivation to do so.
[26] The Applicants do not contest the RAD’s other conclusions in respect of the first prong of the IFA test, nor do they argue the RAD erred in its finding with the regard to the second prong of the test.
VII. Conclusion
[27] This application for judicial review is dismissed. The Applicants have not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable.
[28] Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree none arise.
Email this Content