Docket: IMM-13254-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1809
Ottawa, Ontario, November 14, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Ngo
BETWEEN: |
PARAMJOT SINGH RAYET |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Paramjot Singh Rayet [Applicant] seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated September 27, 2023 rejecting his refugee claim [Decision]. The RAD found that he is not a refugee or person in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The RAD confirmed the decision by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], finding that the Applicant has a viable Internal Flight Alternative [IFA].
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is dismissed. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable.
II. Background and Decision Under Review
[3] The Applicant is a citizen of India who alleges a fear of persecution from other political parties due to his father’s political affiliation, opposition to corruption and support of drug dealers. The Applicant states he was arrested and accused of militancy. Subsequently, he was detained, questioned, and tortured for information about his father’s location. He alleges that his photograph and fingerprints were taken. He also fears being targeted as a supporter of the Khalistan movement.
[4] On February 7, 2023, the RPD rejected the Applicant’s claim based on a viable IFA. The RPD also found that the Applicant’s allegations with respect to being a Khalistan supporter were not credible and rejected the Applicant’s sur place claim as a supporter of the Khalistan movement.
[5] On September 27, 2023, the RAD confirmed the RPD’s decision that there was a viable IFA. The evidence was insufficient to establish a serious possibility of persecution from the agent of harm in the IFA location. The RAD concluded that his agents of persecution did not have the means to track the Applicant and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that they were motivated to do so. The RAD found that the Applicant does not face a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a danger of torture, or a risk to his life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA. The RAD also upheld the RPD’s conclusion and analysis on the Applicant’s sur place claim.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[6] The Applicant submits that the issue on judicial review is whether the RAD’s Decision was unreasonable as it relates to the analysis of the IFA test.
[7] The parties submit that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [Vavilov]). I also agree that in this case, the standard of review on the merits of the Decision is reasonableness.
[8] On judicial review, the Court must assess whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility (Vavilov at para 99). A reasonable decision will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review (Vavilov at para 90). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker misapprehended the evidence before it (Vavilov at paras 125-126).
[9] The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
IV. Analysis
[10] The applicable test relating to an IFA bears repeating for ease of reference. A claimant has an IFA when (1) they will not be subject to a serious possibility of persecution nor to a risk of harm under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA in the proposed IFA location and (2) it would not be objectively unreasonable for them to seek refuge there, taking into account all the circumstances. Both prongs need to be satisfied to conclude that a claimant has an IFA (Bassi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 910 at paras 15-16, citing Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA), [1992] 1 FC 706, and Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589 (FCA) at p 597-598 [Thirunavukkarasu]).
[11] The threshold on the second prong of the IFA test is a high one. There must be “actual and concrete evidence”
of conditions that would jeopardize the applicant’s life and safety in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area. Once the potential for an IFA is raised, the claimant bears the onus of establishing that it is not viable (Olusola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 799 at para 9 [Olusola], citing Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (CA), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164 at para 15 and Thirunavukkarasu at p 594-595).
[12] The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that the IFA is not reasonable. If a claimant has a viable IFA, this will negate a claim for refugee protection under either sections 96 or 97 (Olusola at para 7).
[13] The Applicant submits that the RAD erred in its assessment and analysis of the IFA. The Applicant states that the National Documentation Package showed that he could be located through interstate tracking systems such as the police database and the tenant registration database. The Applicant also submitted that he might be found at the IFA through family and friends, which would require him to hide his location from them in order to stay safe. He states that the proposed IFA was not reasonable because of the treatment of Sikhs in the country, rising to the level of persecution. Finally, the Applicant states that the RAD erred in confirming that he did not credibly establish his support of the Khalistan movement in his sur place claim.
[14] The Respondent argues that the Applicant has essentially expressed his disagreement with the RAD’s decision and invites the Court to reweigh the evidence that the RAD already considered. The RAD did not err in its analysis of the test since the RAD reasonably found, based on the record before it, that the agents of persecution did not have the means and motivation to locate the Applicant in his IFA.
[15] I agree with the Respondent’s arguments. To accept the Applicant’s submissions would require the Court to consider the evidence that the RAD assessed and come to a different conclusion. This is not the Court’s role on judicial review (Vavilov at para 125).
[16] The RAD applied the proper legal test as it relates to the IFA. The RAD’s conclusions and analysis were responsive to the evidence and submissions that were placed before it. Given that there was no evidence to support a finding that the Applicant would be registered in the relevant systems, it was open to the RAD to conclude that the Applicant had not sufficiently addressed how he could be tracked to another IFA using these systems. This Court has confirmed the reasonableness of similar assessments pertaining to the Crime and Criminal Tracking and Network Systems (Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 459, at paras 15-24; Arora v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1270, at paras 22-26) and the tenant registration database (Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1219, at paras 17-19).
[17] The Applicant’s submission that he may be found through family and friends in India was reasonably dismissed by the RAD. The means or capacity of an agent of persecution to find a refugee claimant through family ties is a factual issue that must be established with evidence and on the balance of probabilities (Kodom v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 305, at para 11-14; Ali v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 93 48-52).
[18] The RAD reasonably found that the evidence did not establish that the Applicant’s agents of persecution attempted or would attempt to find him by approaching his family members or his friends in India. This conclusion was grounded in the record before the RAD. The RAD also reasonably found that the Applicant submitted insufficient evidence that the Punjab police had the motivation to pursue him in the proposed IFA. The main target of police inquiries was not the Applicant, but rather, his father.
[19] The RAD held that the Applicant’s sur place risk was not credible, based on contradictions and omissions in the record relating to the Applicant’s claim, as well as inconsistencies in his testimony.
[20] This Court’s jurisprudence confirms that the accumulation of incoherencies and omissions regarding crucial elements of his claim to support a negative credibility finding and overturn the presumption of truthfulness that applies to refugee claimants (Lawani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924, at paras 21-22).
[21] The RPD and the RAD are also in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, which go to the heart of their expertise. Based on the inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions identified, I find no reason to disturb the RAD’s conclusion on the sur place risk.
V. Conclusion
[22] The RAD’s Decision is transparent, intelligible and justifiable in light of the legal and factual constraints that bear on it. As such, I cannot find that the Decision is unreasonable. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
[23] The parties do not propose any question for certification and I agree that in these circumstances, none arise.
Email this Content