Docket: IMM-5161-13
Citation:
2014 FC 414
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, May 2, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
PARAMJIT SINGH
|
|
PREETI SANDHU
|
|
ANGELINA SANDHU
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
CONSIDERING the
application for judicial review of the decision rendered by the Refugee
Protection Division (RPD), dated June 18, 2013, in which the applicants’
claims for protection as refugees or persons in need of protection under
sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC
(2001), c 27 (IRPA or Act), were rejected;
[2]
AND CONSIDERING the
written submissions filed by the parties and the oral submissions made at the
hearing of April 23, 2014;
[3]
AND CONSISDERING the
arguments of both parties, for the reasons below, the application for judicial
review is dismissed.
[4]
In its decision, the RPD dealt with the principal
applicant’s credibility in a highly articulate manner. This was the
determinative issue in this case. The applicants are two spouses and their
child, but it is Paramjit Singh, the husband, who is arguing that he requires
the protection of the Act because of his association with a cousin in his
country of origin, India.
[5]
The RPD also considered the issues of home state
protection and the availability of internal flight alternatives. In my view,
the serious issues raised regarding the credibility of the principal applicant
are sufficient to dispose of the issue.
[6]
The story initially provided by the principal
applicant was very weak. I believe that it would have been difficult to justify
granting refugee protection or the protection of persons described in
section 97 of the Act on that basis alone. The principal applicant had
stated that his cousin had been elected, in their country of origin, to the All
India Sikh Student Federation. Despite the fact that the principal applicant
was not a member of this federation (having graduated from high school in 2002
and gone on to work on the family farm), he stated that he had been invited by
the cousin in question to participate in a demonstration. While he was in a car
that was travelling toward the demonstration, the principal applicant was
allegedly arrested by the police and detained for a short period. When he was
released, he was told to report to the local police station monthly for the
following six months.
[7]
His cousin apparently disappeared for a week
following this interception, and, when he was released, he allegedly complained
that he had been tortured because the authorities had been suspicious about his
role as a Sikh militant. This cousin was allegedly arrested a second time, at
which point the principal applicant decided to leave India. He and his family
travelled to the United States in February 2008, and they were granted a one-year
Canadian work permit not long after. They arrived in the country in
August 2008. However, when he experienced difficulty finding employment in
Canada, the principal applicant allegedly told his family in India in May 2009
that he intended to return to his country of origin. He was warned by his
mother that his cousin had denounced him to the police as another Sikh
militant. On July 31, 2009, the principal applicant filed a claim for
protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Act.
[8]
The parties agree that the application for
judicial review must be heard on the basis of the standard of reasonableness.
The Court agrees. Therefore, the Court must show deference with regard to the
questions of fact and questions of mixed fact and law that were considered by
the RPD. Naturally, this includes any findings regarding the credibility of the
principal applicant. The Supreme Court of Canada stated the following in Dunsmuir
v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9; [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190:
A court conducting a review for reasonableness
inquires into the qualities that make a decision reasonable, referring both to
the process of articulating the reasons and to outcomes. In judicial review,
reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification,
transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is
also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible,
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.
(Para 47)
[9]
In this case, the RPD’s decision seems to be
very well articulated and unassailable. In many important aspects of the
principal applicant’s story, it is very clear that he embellished his version
or made errors regarding important dates and events as he claims they occurred.
For example, despite several opportunities to mention it, it was not until late
in the proceedings that he submitted that his father had been brutally killed in
1991 on account of his militant activities. Not only was this detail added
late, but it lacks credibility on its own terms and is not supported by any
corroborating evidence whatsoever. Even if it could be corroborated, with a
death certificate, for example, this would not help the principal applicant, since
this death took place in a city quite far from the location of the assault that
allegedly killed him almost instantly. Along the same lines, the only evidence
filed in support of this allegation of assassination is an article of which only
a few words have been translated into English. What was available to the RPD
did not allow it to establish a link between the principal applicant and the
individuals named in the article.
[10]
Furthermore, the story related by the principal
applicant about the moment he began to fear for his safety in his home country
is contradicted by subsequent versions of his story. This is not trivial.
[11]
The principal applicant tried to explain away
all of these contradictions, discrepancies and implausible explanations with
documentary evidence about the situation in his country of nationality. It was
argued that corruption is rampant and that the police authorities act without
regard for the law. With respect, it seems to me that this accumulation of
contradictions, discrepancies and explanations lacking in credibility renders
the RPD’s findings completely reasonable, and the documentary evidence does
nothing to change the weak explanations provided by the principal applicant as
to why he feared for his safety. The documentary evidence cannot serve as a
substitute for a personal account lacking in credibility.
[12]
Claiming that the first counsel was incompetent
and failed to refer in the documentation to the circumstances of the death of
the principal applicant’s father does not explain how the principal applicant,
when interviewed directly by an immigration official, could have neglected to
address a point that should have favoured him, at least at first glance. This
would have at least provided some explanation as to why the Indian authorities
might have taken an interest in him. However, he did not seize the
opportunities that presented themselves. The lack of clarity surrounding when
the principal applicant began to feel that it would be dangerous for him to
return to India is similarly significant. One must wonder why the Indian
authorities would take any interest in somebody who was not a student and who
was intercepted only once while he was on his way to a student demonstration. The
statement allegedly made by the cousin, which was reported to the principal
applicant by his mother, with no further explanation or corroborative evidence,
is not sufficiently substantiated to be credible.
[13]
The RPD also concluded that the applicants could
have benefitted from home state protection had they asked for it, which they
clearly never did. Again, the applicants tried to argue that seeking protection
would be counterproductive in the circumstances. In my opinion, their
persuasive efforts on this point were fairly limited. The RPD also concluded
that they had an internal flight alternative in a city far from their home
region of Punjab. It has been established that the capital, New Delhi, has a
large Sikh community, and the RPD accepted the evidence that the applicants
could live there without fear. The metropolitan region of New Delhi is home to
some fifteen million inhabitants.
[14]
In any case, there is no need to elaborate any
further on these issues because, as indicated above, the principal applicant’s
lack of credibility is determinative. If the principal applicant is not
believed, then it is unnecessary to consider other issues such as state
protection and internal flight alternatives. In my view, the RPD’s findings
regarding the principal applicant’s credibility are reasonable and merit this
Court’s deference. This is a sufficient basis on which to decide the issue.
[15]
Accordingly, the application for judicial review
of the RPD’s decision is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Email this Content