Date: 20020307
Docket: IMM-1327-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 264
Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, the 7th day of March, 2002
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice MacKay
BETWEEN:
BHUPINDER SINGH NAGRA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] In this application for judicial review, the applicant seeks an order setting aside a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "CRDD"), dated February 12, 2001, whereby the applicant was found not to be a Convention Refugee.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of India, is a 37 year-old Sikh. He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of imputed political opinions. In his Personal Information Form ("PIF") and in his testimony before the Panel, the applicant alleged the following facts:
. On March 14, 1988, militants killed men in a market where the applicant operated shops. The police believed that Jaswinder Singh was responsible for the violence, and arrested the applicant because Jaswinder Singh and the applicant farmed on adjacent lots, and the police suspected that the applicant was partly responsible for the incident. While in jail, the applicant was brutally tortured. He was released on October 9, 1988. Jaswinder Singh was killed in a police encounter in 1988.
. On November 20, 1993, police raided the village and arrested the applicant's nephew, Gurmail Singh. Police searched his premises and found arms and ammunition in his tubewell. Two days later, police arrested the applicant, detained him for one night and beat him. Police accused the applicant of concealing weapons with Harvinder Singh (the brother of the late Jaswinder Singh). In March 1994, the applicant's father bribed police to delete the applicant's name from their records.
. In March 1998, the applicant negotiated the return of Harvinder Singh to the village. Harvinder Singh was produced at the police station in November 1998, where he was detained and tortured prior to being released on November 25, 1998.
. In January 1999, after raiding the applicant's village, police beat the applicant and accused him of supporting local militants. He was brought to the police station on February 1, 1999, and questioned about both Gurmail Singh and Harvinder Singh.
. On February 15, 1999, the applicant was kept in police custody for one night and was tortured. The following day, after being fingerprinted and forced to sign blank papers, he was released.
. On March 1, 1999, police beat the applicant's wife and father.
. On May 30, 1999, the applicant left India, arriving in Canada on the same day. He claimed refugee status on May 31, 1999.
[3] At the hearing of his claim, the CRDD asked the applicant why he feared that police in India would persecute him if he were to return there, since Jaswinder Singh was killed in 1988 and Gurmail Singh had left the area in 1993. The applicant replied that the police wanted him to falsely testify against the perpetrators of the 1988 market shooting. When asked why this was not mentioned in his PIF, he said he had mentioned the matter to the interpreter who helped draft his PIF. The CRDD found the applicant's evidence on this point not to be credible, commenting as follows in its decision:
The claimant was asked at the beginning of the hearing whether all the information provided in his PIF was true, accurate and complete. He replied that it was.
The panel cannot accept the explanation offered by the claimant and shares the opinion expressed by Justice Teitelbaum in the Basseghi judgment that "all relevant and important facts should be included in the PIF".
The panel finds that the claimant brought forth this new explanation concerning the reasons why he was targeted by the police as a desperate attempt to explain the police's motivation to target him. Consequently, the panel finds this new explanation not to be credible...
[4] The CRDD held that the evidence indicated that, in general, Sikhs in India are not at risk of being harassed or persecuted by the police. The CRDD acknowledged that some sources indicate that members of a Khalistan movement in support of Sikh independence, or those with connection to radical elements, risk arrest. The CRDD further acknowledged that false charges, torture and deaths in police custody may still occur for those at risk because of such links.
[5] In this case, the CRDD found that, other than his earlier "remote links" with Jaswinder Singh and Gurmail Singh, the applicant had no history of political involvement with any pro Khalistan or militant organization. Thus, in light of the documentary evidence the applicant's claim to fear persecution in India lacked plausibility. The objective basis of his claimed fear was not established.
[6] Other grounds suggested by the applicant's written submissions were not raised at the hearing. In my view, none of them would provide any basis for intervention by the Court;
[7] This leaves the only issue here at stake that of the Panel's finding of a lack of credibility of the claim by the applicant. Such a finding is not easily set aside and the Court would only intervene if it were determined the finding was patently unreasonable. Sivasamboo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] 1 F.C. 741 (T.D.)). That cannot be the conclusion here where the finding made by the Panel was open to it on the basis of the evidence before it.
CONCLUSION
[8] In the circumstances, the application for judicial review is dismissed. Neither party suggested a question for certification pursuant to s-s. 83(1) of the Immigration Act.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
W. Andrew MacKay
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
March 7, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20020307
Docket: IMM-1327-01
BETWEEN:
BHUPINDER SINGH NAGRA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Email this Content