Heer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1919

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

[1] Mr. Lovepreet Heer (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”) , dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”) which had dismissed his claim for protection, on the grounds that an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”) is available to him.

[2] The Applicant is a citizen of India. He is a Sikh from the Punjab region. He sought protection on the basis of persecution by the family of a former romantic partner. He alleges that the family of this partner is politically active with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (the “RSS”) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (the “BJP”). He alleged that he suffered harassment and persecution from the family of his former romantic partner and from RSS “goons”, from May 2016 until he left his home town of Surapur and went to Chandigarh. He stayed there until leaving for Canada in December 2016, holding a student visa.

[3] The Applicant claimed refugee protection on October 13, 2020.

[4] The RAD confirmed the finding of the RPD that an IFA is available to the Applicant in Mumbai or Delhi.

[5] The Applicant now argues that the RAD unreasonably assessed his credibility and unreasonably found that an IFA is available to him. Citing the recent decision in Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1020, he also submits that the proposed IFA is unreasonable since he would be forced to remain silent about his political views in order to avoid risk.

[6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) argues that the decision is reasonable.

[7] Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, the decision of the RAD is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.

[8] 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 the decision”; see Vavilov, supra, at paragraph 99.

[9] The Federal Court of Appeal has set out a two-part test for an IFA in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 at 710-711 (F.C.A.). The elements of the test are as follows:

• -First, the Board must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of a claimant being persecuted in the IFA.

• -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.

[10] Upon considering the Certified Tribunal Record and the submissions, both written and oral, of the parties, I am satisfied that the RAD reasonably considered the evidence before it in concluding that an IFA is available to the Applicant. The RAD considered his profile and the means and motivation of the agents of persecution. It reasonably found that those agents would not have the means and motivation to pursue the Applicant in either Mumbai or Delhi.

[11] In my opinion, the RAD also reasonably found that the Applicant could relocate to one of the cities. The arguments of the Applicant seem to amount to a request for the Court to reweigh the evidence. That is not permissible upon an application for judicial review; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 125.

[12] In the result, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.

[13] The Applicant was given the opportunity to submit a proposed question for certification, further to a Direction issued on September 25, 2024. To date, no question has been submitted for consideration. No question will be certified.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-16551-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: