Docket: IMM-19768-24
Citation: 2026 FC 292
Ottawa, Ontario, March 3, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN: |
|
RAJPAL SINGH |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIP |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] dated October 3, 2024 [Decision] rejecting the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. The RPD found that the claim had no credible basis.
[2] The Applicant’s claim for refugee protection made on April 5, 2023, was based on his fear of persecution from the Rajasthan police due to his Sikh religion, his connection to his brother who was allegedly perceived by Rajasthan police as a Sikh militant and his own alleged support for a separate Sikh state.
[3] The Applicant arrived in Canada three years earlier on March 1, 2020, on a work permit obtained by an agent in India that permitted him to work for a specific employer. It was valid until February 28, 2022. Almost immediately upon arrival the Applicant learned that the employer he was to work for did not exist. He had been misled by the agent.
[4] After his work permit expired, the Applicant sought to extend his stay in Canada as a visitor. His application made February 24, 2022, was approved on August 2, 2022, and the Applicant was required to leave Canada by September 3, 2022. An application for a Study Permit made on September 1, 2022, was refused on October 14, 2022 and the Applicant was notified that he had to leave Canada. Another application for a Study Permit on January 19, 2023, was refused on February 26, 2023. Again, the Applicant was told that he was required to leave Canada immediately. He did not leave.
[5] The Applicant did not make a refugee claim until April 5, 2023.
[6] The Applicant testified that during the 3 years after his arrival he did not search or inquire about means to remain in Canada permanently, despite his evidence that the Rajasthan police continued to visit his family looking for him during this time. During his time in Canada the Applicant testified he neither worked nor studied.
[7] The Applicant omitted from his Basis of Claim [BOC] form and narrative that he was persecuted as a direct supporter of a separate state for Sikhs since his mid to late teens in both India and Canada. He made this claim for the first time at the RPD hearing. The Applicant testified that he participated in pro-Khalistan activities in both India and Canada including, in India: Sikh prayers, helping poor girls marry and in Canada: parades, donations, meetings, and voting. In preparing the BOC the Applicant was represented by experienced counsel.
[8] The sole issue raised by the Applicant is whether the RPD erred in finding that there was no credible basis for the claim. That issue is to be assessed on whether the Decision is reasonable.
[9] Having reviewed the entire record before the Court, I agree with the Respondent’s submission that RPD found the Applicant’s evidence, testimonial and documentary, devoid of credibility based on significant inconsistencies, omissions, and contradictions on core elements of his claim, including the following:
-
The Applicant’s evidence was not credible regarding his inaction upon arriving in Canada and learning the employer for his WP was nonexistent, including COVID-19 lockdowns, which had not started yet, his continued reliance on the agent in India who provided misleading and inconsistent information, and his own lack of diligence despite not working or studying for 3 years;
· The Applicant’s explanation for the 3 year delay in making a refugee claim, including false claims of education attained in the Applicant’s subsequent visitor record and study permit applications; the Applicant testified that for 1.5 years consultant offices were closed due to Covid-19. The objective evidence indicated that the IRCC began receiving online refugee applications within months of mid-March 2020 and that consultants and lawyer were filing refugee claims during that time;
· The Applicant testified that he could not make a refugee claim earlier than he did because he did not have the financial means to do so, having only started working for Uber approximately 1 year before his hearing September 12, 2024. Despite this, the Applicant’s inland applications were done using a Canadian representative, where the Applicant affirmed compensation to the representative through his signature of the Use of Representative forms;
· The Applicant signed blank forms, including the Use of Representative forms and sent them back to the agent using WhatsApp. The Applicant also used WhatsApp. Despite having been able to submit all or some of the WhatsApp messages as evidence of the ghost agent operating in India, the Applicant chose not to do so;
· Upon entry to Canada and learning that the employer connected to his work permit was nonexistent, the Applicant traveled to Toronto to live with his cousin. The Applicant testified that the agent in India who obtained the WP told him the employer’s business documents did not exist because of Covid-19 lockdowns, but when the Applicant would have been told this, lockdowns in Canada had not begun. The Applicant added for the first time later in testimony that the agent told him there was a shortage of work. Before pointing out the Covid-19 lockdown timeline, the Applicant repeatedly stated he was had not found the employer due to the lockdown and never mentioned a lack of work;
· Regarding his intentions when he applied for the study permits, the Applicant testified that he had no intention of studying if approved, as he was only trying to remain in Canada. At that time, the Applicant had no plan regarding securing permanent residence in Canada;
· The Applicant testified that the visitor record and 2 study permit applications were prepared and submitted by a Canadian immigration representative affiliated with the Indian agent. Despite not knowing, having met or spoken to the representative, the Applicant signed Use of Representative forms for each of the applications. The Applicant also testified he never paid the representative, notwithstanding that he signed the Use of Representative forms which include confirmation that the representative would be compensated for their representation;
· Omitted from his BOC, written 3 years after he arrived in Canada and for the first time in his testimony, the Applicant stated that he was a direct target of Rajasthan police for his own pro-Khalistan activities. The Applicant testified that he had been a supporter of a separate Sikh state since 16 or 17 years of age, including participating in activities in both India and Canada;
· The Applicant’s evidence regarding efforts to locate his brother evolved from his brother being missing to this brother “went into hiding”. The evolved from initially saying that he called his brother’s numbers, but they were off, to saying that he and his family called his brother’s friends and the agent, to finally saying that he and his family tried to file a complaint with the police after his brother disappeared;
· The Applicant testified that he and his family made attempted to make a complaint to police about the missing brother, however the police refused. This was omitted from the Applicant’s BOC, despite question 2(c) of the BOC specifically asking for this information and despite the Applicant indicating in the form others he contacted about his brother;
· Inconsistency between the Applicant’s statement in his BOC narrative and his testimony regarding when he started hiding from police. The Applicant testified that he had been hiding from police by staying with relatives for long durations of time since March 2019 but never stated this in his BOC which could have been provided in questions 2(d) and 2(h) of the form. This was a significant omission as it was 2 months prior to when his brother stopped reporting to police in May 2019 and disappeared; and
· The Applicant’s documents were given not weight as they repeated the allegations made by the Applicant including failing to mention that the Applicant had been intermittently hiding since March 2019 and that he too had been involved in pro-Khalistan activities. The probative value of the neighbour’s affidavit was also diminished as the Applicant failed to name the neighbour in his narrative regarding who allegedly observed his beating by police. The probative value of the support documents was undermined by the Applicant’s testimony acknowledging that that he signed blank forms and sent them back to the Indian agent for his study permit applications, the applications contained fraudulent documents and the Applicant allowed them to be submitted without his review.
[10] I find that each of these observations is fully supported in the record. The RPD carefully examined the record before it including all of the supporting evidence filed by the Applicant. The overall weight given to the evidence by the RPD rationally supports its no credible basis finding.
[11] This application will be dismissed. No question was proposed to be certified and there is none.
Email this Content