Date: 20050201
Docket: IMM-432-04
Citation: 2005 FC 129
BETWEEN:
Gurmej SINGH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Board") dated December 19, 2003, wherein the Board found the applicant not to be a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Gurmej Singh (the applicant) is a citizen of India and is a Sikh. He alleges a fear of persecution on the basis of his political opinions and his membership in a particular social group.
[3] The Board based its decision on a negative credibility finding. In questions of credibility, this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Board unless the applicant can demonstrate that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). It has been established that the Board is a specialized tribunal capable of assessing the plausibility and credibility of a testimony, to the extent that the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.)).
[4] The applicant alleges that the Board was wrong and did not give clear reasons when it found he lacked credibility. The respondent submits that the Board did not err and the applicant has not discharged his burden of proving that the decision was patently unreasonable. I agree with the latter's submissions for the following reasons.
[5] It was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that it is implausible for the applicant to be wanted by the police. The applicant's passport was issued in 2000, however the applicant's Personal Information Form ("PIF") indicates that his problems arose with the police in 1998. If the police were after the applicant in 1998, it is implausible that they would issue him a passport in 2000. When confronted with this inconsistency, the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation.
[6] There were also other inconsistencies between the applicant's PIF and his testimony. The applicant's PIF indicates that when he was in hiding, he was told that the police had arrested his son, however during his testimony he stated that the "panchayat" had protected his son and his wife. In addition to the contradiction between these two statements, the documentary evidence indicates that youth are targeted by the police. The Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the claimant (Zhou v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1087 (F.C.A.) (QL)). If the applicant had been wanted by the police in 1998, it is more plausible that his son would have been arrested earlier rather than later. This undermines the applicant's credibility.
[7] The applicant submits that the Board was not clear which two statements were in contradiction with each other concerning the applicant's fear of the police and his answers to question 41 of his PIF. The Board noted that the applicant alleged the police harassed him in order to find his brother-in-law and his friend, however at question 41 of his PIF the applicant states the police arrested the two individuals. It cannot be said with certainty whether the police would continue to harass the applicant, or whether they would stop once the two individuals had been arrested, however regardless of the uncertainty of police actions, the applicant was unable to explain why the police continued to harass him.
[8] The Board clearly referred to the two statements in question, however stated that there was a contradiction, rather than an implausibility. It could be argued that the Board could have added a sentence to its decision to the effect that it is implausible that the police would continue to harass the applicant once they had arrested the individuals they were looking for, however, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that if the police found who they were looking for they would stop harassing the applicant. It was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that this contradiction added to the applicant's lack of credibility.
[9] It appears that the Board put the contradictions and implausibilities to the applicant before concluding as it did. It is my opinion that the plausibility and credibility of the applicant's testimony were well assessed by the Board, that the inferences which the latter drew from that testimony are not unreasonable and that its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (see Aguebor and Hilo, supra).
[10] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 1, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-432-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Gurmej SINGH v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December 14, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: February 1, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Me Jessica Lipes FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Simone Truong FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jessica Lipes FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada