IMM-3668-96
BETWEEN: BALWINDER
SINGH
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS
FOR DECISION
(delivered
from the Bench at Montreal, Quebec
on
Tuesday, September 30, 1997)
HUGESSEN, J.
This
application for judicial review attacks a decision of the Immigration and
Refugee Board which rejected the Applicant's claim to refugee status. The
rejection was based on the Panel's view that there were "contradictions,
inconsistencies and implausibilities which are material and central to his
claim". In its reasons the Panel lists five of them.
The first
listed item has two separate points: a) that in his PIF the Applicant said he
was tortured in an "unknown place" while in his evidence he identified
the place as a torture centre outside Ropar City and; b) that after his release
he was treated at home as an outpatient, which in the Panel's view was
"inconsistent with the alleged corporal abuse". As to the first
point, it is clear that in his PIF the Applicant was saying that he
did not know where he was taken when
he was taken there, while in his evidence he was saying that he now knows where
the place is. The second point, in the absence of any medical evidence that
hospitalization was necessary, is the purest speculation on the Panel's part.
The
second item on the Panel's list was acknowledged by the Minister's
representative before me to be based on a misunderstanding of the evidence by
the Panel. I shall come back to the third item in a moment.
The
fourth item on the Panel's list deals with their view that the Applicant was
not specifically targeted by the authorities. Since he did not claim to be, it
is not a contradiciton, inconsistency or implausibility.
The fifth
item deals with the Applicant's failure to make a claim to Refugee Status in
Hong Kong during the four months that he was there. It is in my view of very
little relevance.
I return
to the third ground put forward by the Panel which I reproduce in its entirety:
"The
claimant purported that his family name exists, but that he does not use it.
The claimant further maintained that he did not understand English yet the
school character certificate, affidavits and medical certificate adduced in
support of his claim are drafted entirely in English.
The Panel
ascribes little weight to the affidavits filed as exhibits P-6 and P-7 which
are attested by a lawyer, a notary public and bear the seal bearing the
inscription "Government of India".
The
claimant's attempt to explain the fact that his father understands English was
found to be unacceptable to the Panel.
The Panel
examined and considered the medical opinion filed as Exhibit P-5 and the
psychological expertise filed as Exhibit P-9, and ascribes little weight given
the lack of plausibility relative to the pivotal aspects of the claim."
With
respect, this passage is riddled with error and is in places incomprehensible
and in other places irrational. The first three paragraphs cannot in any sense
be said to constitute reasons for a decision.
The last
paragraph requires a word of explanation. The two reports referred to were
obtained from professionals in this country and, of course, rely to some extent
on what the Applicant has said. But both, and particularly the medical report,
are based on objective professional examinations and conclude that the
conditions observed are compatible with the story told. When to this is added
the earlier medical report from the attending physician in India which the
Panel appears to have completely ignored because it was in English one can only
conclude that the whole decision is manifestly unreasonable and must be set
aside and sent back for a new hearing.
Before
entering judgment I must ask counsel if they have any submissions to make as to
the certification of a question.
Montreal, Quebec,
this 30th day of September
1997 James
K. Hugessen
Judge
IMM-3668-96
BALWINDER
SINGH
Applicant
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
IMM-255-96
AMRITPAL
SINGH
Applicant
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
O R D E R
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF
COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO: IMM-3668-96
STYLE
OF CAUSE: BALWINDER
SINGH
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal,
Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September
30, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen
DATED: September
30, 1997
APPEARANCE: Me
Jean-François Bertrand for the Applicant
Me
Michel Lecours for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Me
Jean-François Bertrand for
the Applicant
Montreal,
Quebec
George
Thomson
Deputy
Attorney General
of
Canada
Ottawa,
Ontario for the Respondent
Email this Content