Docket: IMM-78-24
Citation: 2024 FC 2034
Ottawa, Ontario, December 16, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Régimbald
BETWEEN: |
HARLEEN KAUR |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Ms. Kaur [Applicant] is an Indian national who arrived in Canada on a temporary study permit in November 2016. She claims having been assaulted by individuals who were expelled from a College she supposedly attended in 2016 [DAV College], after she made a complaint alleging that they were selling drugs. She was also harassed by the local police who arrested her on drug charges, and then released her upon payment of a bribe. Fearing for her life, the Applicant claimed refugee status in Canada, alleging that politically connected classmates from DAV College were harassing her through local police. The Refugee Protection Division [RPD] did not find her allegations credible due to a lack of corroborating evidence to support her claim that she attended that College in 2016, including the fact that she did not mention the school in her temporary student visa application to Canada. The Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] agreed, finding that she was not a Convention refugee nor person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. On judicial review, the Applicant now challenges this finding.
[2] The sole issue is whether the RAD decision was reasonable (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7, 39–44).
[3] In essence, the Applicant argues that the RAD erred in confirming the RPD’s credibility finding. I disagree. The RAD’s reasons demonstrate an administrative decision maker doing what it is required to do: make intelligible, transparent, and justified findings of fact in light of the evidence and submissions presented to it (Vavilov at paras 105, 125–128).
[4] The Applicant, despite arguing the contrary, is essentially asking this Court to revisit the RPD’s factual findings, reweighing and reassessing the evidence before it. Absent exceptional circumstances, which do not arise here, the Court will not interfere with the factual findings of an administrative decision maker upon judicial review (Vavilov at para 125). The Court’s role is not to reweigh and reassess the evidence presented before the RPD or RAD. Parliament has entrusted these bodies, and not the Court, as the merit deciders (see, generally, Safe Food Matters Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 19 at para 37, and the authorities cited therein).
[5] It was reasonable for the RAD to find that the RPD had valid concerns about the lack of evidence corroborating the Applicant’s attendance at DAV College, namely due to her failure to mention the College in her temporary resident visa application. As such, the RAD could reasonably find, just like the RPD, that these valid concerns undermined the credibility of her allegations, thus rebutting the presumption of veracity established in Maldonado v Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1979 CanLII 4098 (FCA), [1980] 2 FC 302, and entitling the RAD to require corroborating evidence.
[6] The Applicant was afforded an opportunity to respond to these credibility concerns, with the RAD noting that the RPD had confronted the Applicant on the issue (RAD Reasons at paras 12, 14). Moreover, it was reasonable for the RAD to find that her testimony and explanations (as to why she did not have any corroborative evidence to attest that she attended the school) were contradictory and unreliable. Initially, the Applicant had stated that she did not possess this evidence. Later, she explained that her grandfather had tried to retrieve the evidence but the school refused to provide it to him. Worse, she testified to the effect of having no intention of studying abroad before her problems at DAV College, despite having obtained an admission letter from a Canadian university, arranged a visa and received results for the relevant English-language test months before the alleged events of persecution. When confronted on this contradiction, she suggested that the immigration agents mandated to help her obtain a student visa had made these applications for her, and that her family had been in contact with them. Her father testified that he could not provide any details to this effect, and the Applicant did not submit any evidence to substantiate her claims (RAD reasons at paras 19-21).
[7] It is trite law that contradictory statements can be considered in the overall assessment of an applicant’s credibility (Sun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 477 at para 38, citing Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v Dan-Ash, [1988] FCJ No 571, 93 NR 33 (CA)). The underlying and determinative issue for the RPD is the absence of corroborating evidence, and the RAD could reasonably confirm the RPD’s finding that the explanations provided for the lack of evidence were simply not credible.
[8] It is similarly fatal for a claimant not to be able to identify an agent of persecution (Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 FC 589, 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA) at 592). The identity and the number of agents of harm are vital to any claim of persecution (Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164 (FCA) at para 15). In this case, except for one individual, the Applicant and her father were unable to identify the agents of persecution, and the Applicant contradicted herself as to whether they formed a group or not, even if she allegedly made complaints against them for selling drugs. Moreover, the Applicant argues that the RAD did a microscopic analysis of the evidence when it ruled that the Applicant’s father’s testimony was not credible in relation to the agents of persecution because his use of the pronoun “they”
could be indicative of an individual agent or a group. I disagree. Numerous contradictions and uncertainties were noted by the RAD and all can reasonably undermine a refugee claim. The Applicant bore the onus to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that she has a risk as understood under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA or a serious possibility of persecution throughout her country. The onus rested on the Applicant to support her claim with sufficient evidence (Vavilov at para 100). A failure to provide details or corroborating materials can certainly be a basis for a finding that the evidence is insufficient, and this is a valid reason to reject a claim (Aldhairat v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1708 at para 41; Sallai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 446 at para 56).
[9] This application for judicial review is dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification, nor does any such question arise here.
Email this Content