Date: 20050930
Docket: IMM-2172-05
Citation: 2005 FC 1330
BETWEEN:
SOHAN SINGH
Applicant
-and-
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB) dated March 15, 2005, that the applicant is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" as defined under sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Sohan Singh, the applicant, is 29 years old and is Sikh. He alleges that he is a farmer from the village of Ber Kalan in the district of Ludhiana in Pendjab.
[3] The applicant alleges that he was targeted by the Pendjab police and that he is a potential target of the Indian national police. He alleges that the police accused him of being an accomplice of Harnek Singh, a Sikh militant who he says is his cousin.
[4] The applicant alleges that he had been arrested in February 2003, after his cousin had visited his home, and that the police detained him and tortured him in order to find his cousin.
[5] In August 2004, the police arrested Harnek Singh. The applicant alleges that the police have accused him of helping his cousin from Canada.
[6] The panel dismissed the applicant's claim because he lacked credibility. The refugee claim was based on the connections between the applicant and Harnek Singh, his alleged cousin. The failure to establish this connection was sufficient to deny the refugee claim.
[7] The evidence establishes that the applicant knew almost nothing about Harnek Singh. He was unaware that Harnek Singh was a leader of the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) and he was unaware of the crimes attributed to him and the key aspects of his career as a longtime Sikh militant. As the panel stated, it is not plausible that the applicant could have no knowledge of such information regarding a person who had been at the root of all his problems in India since 1993. It was not unreasonable for the panel to make that determination.
[8] The IRB found that Harnek Singh's impromptu visit to the applicant's home on February 23, 2003, was not plausible or trustworthy. The applicant testified that he had not had any contact with Harnek Singh between 1993 and 2003 and that the police had come to his home regularly in that ten-year period. Harnek Singh was a leader of the KLF who lived in hiding. It is reasonable to believe that Harnek Singh would not in 2003 have visited the home of a family member who was being watched by the authorities, in a small village.
[9] The applicant alleges that he has been blacklisted by the police authorities. However, the evidence establishes that the applicant has never been accused of any crime. Even if he was compelled to report to the police authorities every month , he was free to come and go. He obtained without difficulty a document from the police authorities ("police clearance") as well as his passport, issued in 1999. Further, the applicant was able to obtain a Canadian visa and was able pass through the security measures in place at the Delhi airport, without any difficulty. Given this factual situation, the panel determined that the applicant had not been blacklisted. That finding is perfectly reasonable.
[10] In short, the applicant has certainly not succeeded in establishing that the inferences generally drawn by the specialized tribunal that is the IRB could not reasonably have been drawn (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)).
[11] Finally, with respect to the panel's assessment of the medical reports filed by the applicant, it is sufficient to refer to Danailov v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (October 6, 1993), T-273-93, where, at page 2, Madam Justice Reed stated the followed:
. . . With respect to the assessment of the doctor's evidence, to find that that opinion evidence is only as valid as the truth of the facts on which it is based, is always a valid way of evaluating opinion evidence. If the panel does not believe the underlying facts it is entirely open to it to assess the opinion evidence as it did.
[12] For all of these reasons, the intervention of this Court is not justified and the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 30, 2005
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2172-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: SOHAN SINGH v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 22, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: September 30, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT
Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content