Date: 20040831
Docket: IMM-7645-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1194
Toronto, Ontario, August 31st, 2004
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
GURTEJ SINGH GILL
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Gill is a 27-year-old citizen of India of Sikh extraction. He claims a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinion. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD) determined that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001 c. 27 (IRPA). He asks that I set aside the board's decision. His request will not be granted.
[2] Mr. Gill claimed to have been targeted by Sikh extremists who wanted him to join their movement as a fighter. He said that his political opinions were moderate and he favoured the status quo, so he refused to join. He claimed to have been abducted and held for ten days because the group was trying to force him to join them. He either escaped or was allowed to leave (Mr. Gill could not make up his mind as to which it was during the hearing) and he allegedly was forced to go into hiding.
[3] Mr. Gill originally came to Canada as a sponsored member of the family class. However, he came under an assumed name (Sharanjit Singh Rangi) and was not a member of the family that sponsored him although it appears that he subsequently married a member of that family. The deception came to light when he attempted to sponsor his new wife. When the misrepresentation was discovered, his permanent resident status was revoked and he claimed refugee protection. Between the time that he entered Canada as a permanent resident and the time he claimed refugee protection, Mr. Gill made three trips to India and on at least two of those trips, he visited the area where he claimed to fear persecution.
[4] The RPD identified credibility as the determinative issue. The reasons for its decision are twenty pages long and are replete with credibility concerns. The board found that key elements of the story, including the timing of Mr. Gill's schooling and the threats against him were inconsistent and that there were numerous inconsistencies between the PIF and the oral testimony, some of which became even more confused when Mr. Gill was asked to clarify. It also found significant embellishments and determined that too many leading questions were required to draw out the narrative. The documentary evidence did not assist him because it indicated first, that militant Sikhism was mostly exhausted by the time Mr. Gill claims to have been persecuted and second, that his village had never experienced terrorist or militant problems.
[5] The RPD found it problematic that the fraudulent sponsorship application for Mr. Gill was made in 1996 when his testimony stated that he was not even approached by the militants before 1997. It also found the fact that he returned to India three times and spent thirteen out of thirty-six months there was inconsistent with a well-founded fear of persecution. Finally, the board noted that when asked why he feared returning to India, his response was primarily that he had no means to support himself there.
[6] Mr. Gill's written submissions allege various grounds of error with respect to the board's decision. At the hearing, his counsel abandoned all of the grounds but one -- he submits that the decision is tainted due to a reasonable apprehension of bias. I have not been able to find any evidence - in the transcript or in the reasons - to indicate bias on the part of the board.
[7] The oft-stated test for bias is set out in [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369">Committee for Justice and Liberty v. Canada [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at pages 394 and 395:
[T]he apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal that test is "what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically - and having thought the matter through - conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly".
[8] The grounds for reasonable apprehension of bias must be "substantial": [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369">Committee for Justice and Liberty, supra.
[9] Mr. Gill points to one portion of the reasons to support his allegation. He claims that the comments that are underlined in the extract produced below indicate that the RPD had prejudged the matter.
These are the reasons for the negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of Gurtej Singh Gill to refugee protection. The claimant is approximately 27 years old and a citizen of India. The claimant was landed in Canada on February 6, 1998 under the identity of Sharanjit Singh Rangi, born on April 19, 1997. In May, 2000 Citizenship and Immigration Canada learned through an investigation conducted by the Canadian High Commission in India that Sharanjit Singh Rangi was in fact Gurtej Singh Gill and that he had gained landing by misrepresenting himself as the son of Gurdip Singh Rangi, who had misrepresented the claimant as his son to the Canadian High Commission. The claimant made a claim to be a Convention refugee on June 11, 2002. The hearing into the claim was held pursuant to section 170 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) at Toronto, Ontario on January 7 and April 3, 2003.
In determining whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, I have considered all the evidence, including the claimant's Personal Information form (PIF), oral testimony, the documentary evidence filed by Counsel and the Refugee Protection Officer (RPO), all representations made, IRPA, and the relevant case law.
No issue is taken with the remainder of the reasons that, as previously noted, comprise twenty pages.
[10] Mr. Gill falls far short of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias on this basis. The RPD was merely stating his immigration history before proceeding to an analysis of his claim. I find no fault with that approach. The board went on to painstakingly set out the evidence, the inconsistencies and omissions therein, the embellishments and the difficulties in ascertaining what it was that Mr. Gill was alleging to fear. A review of the transcript reveals that the reasons constitute an accurate representation of the evidence provided at the hearing.
[11] Mr. Gill's allegation and concern that too much time was spent dwelling on the fact that he had used two names in the past was appropriately dealt with by the board. It ruled, rightly in my view, that fairness overrides expediency and that Mr. Gill was to be provided a fair opportunity to explain his need for protection even if that involved "some repetition and perhaps some wandering over paths that have already been trod".
[12] Moreover, the RPD was entitled, in its assessment of credibility, to take into account the history of misrepresentations to CIC officials and to observe that Mr. Gill, during the time that he lived in Canada, returned three times to India without making a refugee claim, though he claimed to fear persecution if removed from Canada. The problem was not that the board prejudged the matter and refused to be persuaded of the validity of the claim. Rather, the problem was that Mr. Gill's claim was inherently unbelievable and Mr. Gill had, in the past, provided unreliable information that contradicted his claim.
[13] Since this is sufficient to dispose of the matter, I need not address the alternative argument of the respondent - that it was incumbent upon Mr. Gill to raise the allegation of apprehension of bias at the earliest opportunity and since no objection was taken before the RPD, it could not now be argued. That said, the question proposed for certification by Mr. Gill dealing with the necessity of an "objection" during the hearing will not be certified because it would not be determinative of an appeal.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7645-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: GURTEJ SINGH GILL
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 30, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: AUGUST 31, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Frederick Wang For the Applicant
Marcel Larouche For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bay Street Immigration Lawyers P.C.
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, ON For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20040831
Docket: IMM-7645-03
BETWEEN:
GURTEJ SINGH GILL
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content