Date: 19980605
Docket: IMM-3910-97
BETWEEN:
SUKHCHAIN SINGH ATWAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
WETSTON, J.:
[1] The Applicant contends that the Board erred in two ways:
| 1. The Board erred in failing to evaluate his claim on religious grounds or membership in a particular social group and not only on political opinion. |
| 2. The Board erred by ignoring relevant documentary evidence in its assessment of the availability of an IFA for the applicant. |
[2] With respect to the first error alleged by the Applicant it is clear that the determination of an IFA is integral to whether or not a claimant is a convention refugee: Rasaratnam v. MEI, [1992] 1 F.C. 706. In its IFA analysis, it is apparent that the Board considered all available grounds of persecution under the convention, including religion, in finding that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. In other words, while the Board only identified political opinion, it is clear that in the circumstances of this case, the Board considered religion and membership in a particular social group.
[3] Moreover in Kanagaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 75 (F.C.A.) the Court of Appeal noted that:
| In assessing whether a viable IFA exists, the Board, of course, must have regard to all the appropriate circumstances. This was done in this case. Since an IFA existed, therefore, the claimant by definition could not have a well-founded fear of persecution in her country of nationality. Thus, while the Board may certainly do so if it chooses, there was no need as a matter of law for the Board to decide whether there was persecution in the area of origin as a prerequisite to the consideration of an IFA. |
[4] At the conclusion of the hearing I found that the Board made no reviewable error in its consideration of the evidence before it with respect to the availability of an IFA.
[5] I have considered the decision of Ayad v. MCI (1996), 117 F.T.R.270 and in my opinion, it is clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. In Ayad, supra, the Board's IFA analysis was not sound. In this case, while religion and membership in a particular social group is not explicit, clearly the Board considered these grounds in its IFA analysis.
[6] No question for certification was proposed. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Howard I. Wetston"
Judge
June 5, 1998
Toronto, Ontario
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3910-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: SUKHCHAIN SINGH ATWAL |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 2, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: CALGARY, ALBERTA
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: WETSTON, J.
DATED: JUNE 5, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Dalwinder Hayer
For the Applicant
Mr. Brad Hardstaff
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Dalwinder Hayer
238-1830 52nd Street South East
Calgary, Alberta
T2B 1N1
For the Applicant
Department of Justice
Edmonton Regional Office
211 Bank of Montreal
10199-101 Street
Edmonton, Alberta
T5J 3Y4
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980605
Docket: IMM-3910-97
Between:
| SUKHCHAIN SINGH ATWAL |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER