Date: 20041126
Docket: IMM-1275-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1666
Vancouver, British Columbia, Friday, the 26th day of November, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARRINGTON
BETWEEN:
GURIQBAL SINGH PANNU and
BALJIT KAUR PANNU
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] Mr. and Mrs. Pannu are unsuccessful Convention refugees. Before being returned to India they were entitled to ask for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA") pursuant to sections 112 and following of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. The risk assessment officer found they would not be at risk if returned to India. This is a judicial review of that decision.
[2] Mr. and Mrs. Pannu asserted two reasons why they would be at risk in India. One is Mr. Pannu's membership in the Sikh community. He fears he might be considered a Sikh terrorist or, on the other hand, randomly killed by Sikh terrorists. The other ground is that they are at risk at the hand of Mrs. Pannu's ex-husband who will kill them because he still considers Mrs. Pannu to be his wife, and will seek retribution because she has remarried and has had a child with another man.
[3] The Sikh issue can be dismissed out of hand. The officer's reasoning is well-founded. Not only is the situation under control, there is no reason why they could not reside outside the Punjab, particularly in Delhi which has a Sikh population of over one million.
[4] As to risk from Mrs. Pannu's ex-husband, he certainly was a violent man in Canada. He had various criminal convictions, including one for attempted murder, before being deported back to India. There has been no direct communication with Mrs. Pannu since his deportation and no direct communication with the couple who have been married since mid-1999. He is said to have communicated with Mrs. Pannu's family in India, and with a family friend who told his brother in Canada who, in turn, told the Pannus that their lives, or at least Mrs. Pannu's life, was in danger.
[5] The decision of the PRRA officer is criticized because there is no separate analysis under sections 96 and 97 of the Act. However, that is an argument which places form above substance. The analysis covers both sections 96 and 97 more than adequately.
[6] What it comes down to is that the officer was not satisfied that there was an objective well-founded risk of attack from Mrs. Pannu's ex-husband. She carefully weighed the evidence and, irrespective of the standard of review, it cannot be said that she was unreasonable in her assessment. It is well established that the Court is not to re-weigh the evidence in such circumstances.
[7] The officer went on to say that, in any event, there was an internal flight alternative, more particularly to the city of Delhi. The decision is criticized because there is no specific mention of police protection being available in Delhi. The focus was more on the unlikelihood of the ex-husband finding them. However, the officer considered a great deal of documentation pertaining to country conditions, one being the Danish Immigration Service report. One can only conclude that police protection is not an issue, as the report says:
As may be seen from the section on the general security situation, the situation in Punjab is currently much improved, and the conflict between the different groups there has quietened down. It was therefore not relevant to ask our various interlocutors about the authorities' capacity and willingness to protect the civilian population from attack by militants or others.
The foreign diplomatic missions considered that there was no reason to believe that someone who has or has had problems in Punjab would not be able to reside elsewhere in India.
[8] The officer's conclusion that there is no more than a mere possibility that they would be subject to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, if returned to India, is not reviewable. The application must be dismissed.
ORDER
The application for judicial review, under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, of the decision of L.Ko, Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer, dated January 20, 2004, is dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify.
(Sgd.) "Sean Harrington"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1275-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: GURIQBAL SINGH PANNU et al.
v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: November 25, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: HARRINGTON J.
DATED: November 26, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Nicole Hainer FOR APPLICANTS
Mr. Benton Mischuk FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Elgin, Cannon & Associates FOR APPLICANTS
Vancouver, BC
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada