Date: 20020205
Docket: IMM-3674-01
Neutral reference: 2002 FCT 134
BETWEEN:
PARMINDER SINGH SANDHU
Plaintiff
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] The plaintiff is asking the Court to set aside a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Refugee Division") dated July 16, 2001. The Refugee Division concluded that the plaintiff was not a Convention refugee.
[2] The plaintiff, born on May 25, 1970, is a citizen of India. The plaintiff arrived in Toronto on September 10, 2000 and claimed refugee status in Montréal two days later, on September 12.
[3] His claim was based on his alleged political opinions. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that the Indian police persecuted him and that they would again persecute him if he returned to his country. In the plaintiff's submission, the Indian police suspected him of being a militant because of his alleged association with one Pritam Singh, who he said was the tenant of a room in the family home.
[4] The hearing before the Refugee Division took place on June 19, 2001 and the negative decision was rendered on July 16, 2001. In a relatively short decision the Refugee Division concluded that the evidence provided by the plaintiff was neither credible nor plausible. At p. 3 of its reasons the Refugee Division said the following:
ANALYSIS
The claimant fears returning to India in that he would be continuously harassed and physically abused by the Indian authorities, as they believe him to have links to Sikh Punjabi militants. However, the panel does not believe that the claimant has provided either credible or plausible explanations for this fear.
Firstly, the claimant is a thirty-one year old Punjabi Sikh. The claimant testified to never having had any difficulty with the authority or any accusation being levelled against him for involvement in alleged Punjabi militant activities throughout the 1980s and the 1990s. The claimant also testified that his village was not known for militant activities.
The claimant's fear seems to be based around the circumstances surrounding the renting of a room in his father's house to a Baljit Singh / Pritam Singh. The claimant testified that the agreement to rent the room was made between the claimant's father and the alleged Baljit/Pritam Singh. Yet the claimant's father was only detained once during the raid of December 1999 and released. The claimant had no explanation. The claimant had no knowledge of who this individual was and had not seen or done any activities with this individual.
[5] Mr. Le Brun, counsel for the plaintiff, alleges that the Refugee Division made several errors, more particularly, that it stated that the plaintiff's father was arrested only once, on December 1, 1999, although the evidence clearly showed that he was arrested a second time in June 2000. Mr. Le Brun submits the following statement by the Refugee Division as proof of this error:
Yet the claimant's father was only detained once during the raid of December 1999 and released.
[6] In my opinion, the Refugee Division did not make the error alleged by the plaintiff. A careful reading of the transcript of the plaintiff's testimony at the hearing of June 19, 2001 suffices to persuade the Court that the Refugee Division did not ignore the father's second arrest in June 2000. In my opinion, it is clear that, in the passage cited by Mr. Le Brun, the Refugee Division emphasized the fact that the father had been arrested only once because he was suspected of being a militant. The arrest in June 2000 only occurred because the plaintiff did not go the police station as he was required to do. In other words, if we rely on the story related by the plaintiff, his father would not have been arrested in June 2000 if he had gone to the police station. Consequently, I cannot conclude that the Refugee Division made the error alleged by Mr. Le Brun.
[7] Because I consider that the Refugee Division's conclusion, based on the lack of plausibility in the story related by the plaintiff, is entirely reasonable, I would like to add the following. The plaintiff testified that after his arrest on December 1, 1999 he was held in detention for nine days, and that he was mistreated during those nine days. According to his testimony, he was released after nine days when his father paid 40,000 rupees to obtain his release. What is strange is that the plaintiff testified that his father was arrested at the same time as himself and that they were placed in different rooms or cells. According to the plaintiff's testimony, it would appear that the father was released very soon after his arrest and the police caused him no trouble. In my opinion, this makes the plaintiff's story completely improbable.
[8] It is true that the Refugee Division did not make the comments I have just made, but there can be no question that the evidence in the record entirely supports the conclusion arrived at by the Refugee Division that the plaintiff lacked plausibility.
[9] Consequently, there is no need for me to dwell at length on the other two errors allegedly committed by the Refugee Division. Nonetheless, I should like to indicate that in my view the third error the plaintiff alleged was made by the Division is simply a typographical mistake. It is clear from reading the record that the Refugee Division did not misunderstand the situation regarding the visit of two men noted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that two men visited Pritam Singh's room. He did not testify that those individuals visited him, and I feel sure that the word "claimant" contained in the sentence
The claimant told the police that on two occasions he saw two individuals whom he could not identify visiting the claimant in his room...
[emphasis mine]
is a typographical mistake. In any case, if there is an error it is not a conclusive error and certainly could not justify intervention by the Court.
[10] For these reasons, the plaintiff's application for judicial review will be dismissed.
|
|
Marc Nadon
Judge
|
O T T A W A (Ontario)
February 5, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: IMM-3674-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: PARMINDER SINGH SANDHU
v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 30, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 5, 2002
APPEARANCES:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE PLAINTIFF
DIANE LEMERY FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE PLAINTIFF
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE DEFENDANT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content