Date: 19991021
Docket: IMM-400-99
BETWEEN:
MAKHAN SINGH MADAHAR,
Plaintiff,
AND
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for leave and judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Division on December 28, 1998 that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee.
FACTS
[2] The plaintiff is a Sikh, 37 years old, originally from the province of the Punjab in India. He argued that a militant was killed on his farm in April 1994 and he was subsequently arrested and charged with offering food and lodging to militants. He said he was then tortured and finally released, following the payment of a bribe.
[3] Three years later, on February 25, 1997, he saw the police arrest his cousin who was working for the Punjab Human Rights Organization (PHRO). He approached several influential people to try and locate his cousin, since the police denied holding him. He alleged that he was arrested on April 4, 1997, detained, beaten and tortured and was finally released following intervention by the Sarpanch and the payment of a bribe.
[4] In October of that year one of the leaders of the Akali Dal party received a threatening letter and, following a complaint lodged with the police, the latter tried to seized the plaintiff. As he was not at home, he contacted an officer and arrived in Canada in November 1997, claiming refugee status.
ISSUE
[5] Did the Refugee Division err in rejecting the plaintiff"s allegations based on a general lack of credibility?
ANALYSIS
[6] In Rez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 618, Nadon J. stated:
| Having concluded that the applicants" evidence relating to the events from 1966 to 1990 was not credible, could the tribunal reasonably have concluded that the evidence relating to the post-1990 events was not credible? |
| On this point, the respondent submits that the answer to this question is yes, and referred me to the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Sheikh v. Canada, [1990] 3 F.C. 238, and more particularly at page 244, where MacGuigan J.A. wrote: |
| The concept of "credible evidence" is not, of course, the same as that of the credibility of the applicant, but it is obvious that where the only evidence before a tribunal linking the applicant to his claim is that of the applicant himself (in addition, perhaps, to "country reports" from which nothing about which the applicant"s claim can be directly deduced), a tribunal"s perception that he is not a credible witness effectively amounts to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which the second-level tribunal could allow his claim. |
[7] In Kalia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 1682, Pinard J. concluded:
| It has also been held that a negative finding of credibility can be extended to all relevant evidence drawn from the testimony (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1990), 11 Imm. L.R. (2d) 81 (F.C.A.); |
| While the above is sufficient to dismiss this application, I also wish to address the Board"s dismissal of the applicant"s medical evidence. In my view, it was open to the Board to reject this medical evidence, given that the facts underlying the reports were found not to be credible. Madame Justice Reed expounded the following in Danailov v. M.E.I. (October 6, 1993), T-273-93, at pages 1 and 2: |
| ...With respect to the assessment of the doctor"s evidence, to find that the opinion evidence is only as valid as the truth of the facts on which it is based, is always a valid way of evaluating opinion evidence. If the panel does not believe the underlying facts it is entirely open to it to assess the opinion evidence as it did. |
[8] Based on the precedents, it is clear that in view of the lack of credibility regarding the important events related by the plaintiff, the Refugee Division could properly dismiss other points of evidence deriving from the same events. On the evidence submitted to the Refugee Division, it was not unreasonable for the Division to conclude as it did.
[9] In view of the foregoing, intervention by this Court does not appear to be warranted in the circumstances.
[10] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[11] No serious question was submitted for certification.
| Pierre Blais Judge |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 21, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: IMM-400-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MAKHAN SINGH MADAHAR and |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC |
| DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 13, 1999 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: BLAIS J. |
| DATED: NOVEMBER 21, 1999 |
APPEARANCES:
| JEAN-FRANÇOIS BERTRAND FOR THE APPLICANT |
| MARTINE VALOIS FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| BERTRAND, DESLAURIERS FOR THE APPLICANT |
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
| MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT |
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA