Docket: IMM-4832-20
Citation: 2021 FC 992
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, September 24, 2021
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
| BETWEEN:
|
| PALWINDER SINGH DHILLON
|
| Applicant
|
| and
|
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Mr. Palwinder Singh Dhillon (the “Applicant”
) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”
). In that decision, the RAD confirmed the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”
), finding that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, within the meaning of section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. c. 27 (the “Act”
).
[2]
The RAD also confirmed the conclusion of the RPD that an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”
) is available to the Applicant in India, in either Delhi or Mumbai.
[3]
The Applicant is a citizen of India. He alleged a fear of persecution on the part of the police and members of the Satkar Committee, in obstructing his access to the Sikh Temple in his village which is located in the Punjab.
[4]
The RAD applied the relevant test for an IFA as described in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1991), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (Fed. C.A.), at 710-711. The test is two pronged and provides as follows:
- First, the Board must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of a claimant being persecuted in the IFA; and
- Second, it must be objectively reasonable to expect a claimant to seek safety in a different part of the country before seeking protection in Canada.
[5]
In order to show that an IFA is unreasonable, an applicant must show that conditions in the proposed IFA would jeopardize life and safety in travelling or relocating to that IFA; see Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1993), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (Fed. C.A.), at 596-598.
[6]
The RAD’s decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, pursuant to the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov (2019), 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C).
[7]
In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on that decision”
; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.
[8]
Upon considering the record and the submissions of the parties, both written and oral, I see no reviewable error on the part of the RAD, in dismissing the Applicant’s appeal.
[9]
The Applicant submitted no new evidence before the RAD to dispute the availability of an IFA in India.
[10]
The RAD reasonably applied the applicable test for an IFA. There is no basis for judicial intervention and the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
Email this Content