Date: 19981021
Docket: IMM-3358-97
BETWEEN:
KAMALJIT SINGH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
WETSTON J.
[1] The applicant, a citizen of India, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board") in which the Board determined that he was not a Convention refugee. The applicant bases his claim on grounds of political opinion and membership in a particular social group, Punjabi Sikhs who are suspected of supporting pro-Khalistan militancy in India.
[2] The Board issued its decision on July 18, 1997. The Board found that the standard of proof had not been met; it was not satisfied that there was a "reasonable chance" or a "serious possibility" that the claimant would be persecuted were he to return to India. The Board found that the claimant lacked credibility.
[3] The issues in this case concern whether the Board erred in law by drawing unreasonable inferences, misconstruing evidence before it, and ignoring relevant evidence. In a very succinct and well-presented argument on behalf of the applicant, Ms. Senjule contended that the Board erred by ignoring evidence from the applicant which explained apparent inconsistencies in his oral testimony regarding his involvement with a political party. The applicant further submits that the Board erred in drawing unreasonable inferences regarding the applicant's return to the Punjab. The applicant submits that the Board erred in ignoring documentary evidence before it concerning the viability of an internal flight alternative in India and the power of Punjab police. The applicant submits that the Board erred in failing to consider the personal circumstances of the claimant in respect to the IFA.
[4] The respondent submits that the Board is entitled to decide adversely with respect to the claimant's credibility on the basis of contradictions and inconsistencies in the claimant's story and between the claimant's story and other evidence before the Board, or on the basis of the implausibility of the claimant's testimony alone. The respondent submits that the Board in this case had sufficient basis for a finding of a lack of credibility. The respondent argues that questions of credibility and weight of evidence are within the jurisdiction of the Board as the trier of fact with respect to Convention refugee claims. The respondent submits that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that any of the Board's inferences or conclusions were capricious or unsupported by the evidence and as such, the Board's finding must be allowed to stand.
[5] In this case, I agree with the respondent's submissions. I cannot find on the evidence that the Board made any error or improper inferences with respect to whether or not the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution. Nor do I find that the Board erred in its consideration of the IFA issue. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Howard I. Wetston
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
October 21, 1998