Date: 20101022
Docket: IMM-648-10
Citation: 2010 FC 1032
Ottawa, Ontario, October 22, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
HARBHAJAN
SINGH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr.
Harbhajan Singh arrived in Canada in 2008 and made a claim for refugee
protection based on his fear of persecution in India. A panel of
the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected Mr. Singh’s claim after finding his
testimony to be inconsistent and incomplete. Mr. Singh argues that the Board
erred by failing to explain adequately why it discounted his evidence. He asks
me to order a new hearing before a different panel.
[2]
In
my view, the Board’s findings were supported by the evidence before it and were
reasonable. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
[3]
The
sole issue is whether the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
II. Background
[4]
Mr.
Singh claimed to fear the police in his home town of Kaddon. The police
allegedly targeted Mr. Singh because his brother had been an active member of
the Akali Dal Amritsar Party (ADA) in Punjab. After his brother fled and sought
asylum in the United
States
in 1997, the police continued to single out Mr. Singh for mistreatment. He says
that in 1998 he was arrested, beaten and questioned about his brother. When the
ADA persuaded
him to document his treatment, the police arrested and beat him again. He
claims that he was released after his family paid a bribe.
[5]
Mr.
Singh left Kaddon in 1998 and lived and worked elsewhere in India. When he
returned in 2005 to visit his father, he says the police came looking for him.
He fled to Delhi and started
to make arrangements to leave India. He finally succeeded in 2008.
[6]
The
Board identified a number of problems with Mr. Singh’s version of events. In
particular, it found inconsistencies in Mr. Singh’s description of his
injuries. In his written narrative, he mentioned that his body was swollen and
covered with lacerations. He did not mention receiving medical treatment. At
his hearing, he testified that he had in fact been hospitalized for several
days, and added that his finger had been broken.
[7]
After
the Board noted that he had not presented any documentary evidence to
corroborate his injuries, Mr. Singh obtained a letter from a doctor in India and
presented it to the Board at the second stage of his hearing. At one point he
claimed that he was hospitalized after his first arrest; later, he said it was
after the second.
[8]
The
Board found that the doctor’s letter was vague as to the source and nature of
Mr. Singh’s injuries and inconsistent with some of the other evidence before
it. For example, the letter did not mention a broken finger. Considering its
contents and the timing of its presentation, the Board concluded that the
letter was unreliable, noting the ease with which fraudulent documents can be
obtained in India.
[9]
The
Board also noted that Mr. Singh had been able to live and work openly in India for seven
years without being located by the police. It found that Mr. Singh had an
“internal flight alternative” - there was no serious possibility that Mr. Singh
would be persecuted in a large city, such as New Delhi, and it
would be reasonable for him to reside in a location where he could find
employment and avoid the risk of mistreatment, if any, in his home town. After
all, he had successfully done so from 1998 to 2005.
III. Was the
Board’s Decision Reasonable?
[10]
The
Board is in the best position to judge the credibility and reliability of the
evidence before it. I can intervene only if the Board’s treatment of the
evidence was unreasonable.
[11]
Having
reviewed the record and the transcript of the hearing, I am satisfied that the
Board’s findings were supported by the evidence. A comparison of the documents
before the Board and Mr. Singh’s testimony discloses the several
inconsistencies and omissions identified by the Board, as described above.
[12]
Even
if the Board’s conclusion about the evidence supporting Mr. Singh’s claim of
persecution had been unreasonable, its finding that Mr. Singh had a viable
internal flight alternative in New Delhi provided an alternative
and independent basis on which to dismiss Mr. Singh’s claim. The police,
according to Mr. Singh’s testimony, wanted him to leave Kaddon. There was no
evidence they sought him elsewhere. Again, I am satisfied that the evidence
before the Board supported its conclusion that Mr. Singh would be able to find
a safe place to live and work in India. His own experience from 1998 to 2005
confirmed this.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[13]
The
Board’s decision was supported by the evidence before it. Its conclusion was
reasonable in the sense that it fell within a range of possible, acceptable
outcomes based on the facts and the law. Accordingly, I must dismiss this
application for judicial review. No question of general importance arises for
certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is
that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content