Date: 19980514
Docket: IMM-3250-97
BETWEEN:
GURDIP SINGH TIWANA,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench on April 21, 1998, as edited)
MCKEOWN J.
[1] The applicant, a citizen of India, seeks judicial review of a decision dated July 7, 1997, of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as he had an internal flight alternative (an "IFA") available to him.
[2] The issue is whether the Board considered the totality of the evidence and whether the Board ignored the report of the family physician on the applicant's psychological assessment.
[3] The Board considered the two tests in Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A.). The Board considered whether an IFA was available in Bombay and whether it was available to the applicant in his particular circumstances.
[4] The applicant submitted that the Board ignored 1994 and 1996 documentary reports in considering whether there was an available IFA. However, in its decision, the Board reviewed four excerpts from 1997 reports on the question of which persons were targeted outside the Punjab and it preferred the current reports. It also preferred the documentary evidence over the evidence of the applicant, "because it is current, detailed, and comes from a diverse range of sources who have no interest in the outcome of these proceedings".
[5] The Board's findings were open to it on the evidence. The Board also reviewed the particular circumstances of the applicant at page 6 of its Reasons:
| In assessing whether or not it is reasonable for the claimant to live and work outside the Punjab we do not accept the claimant's belief that because he speaks a difference language and his dress and way of life is different, he will be recognized as an outsider and people will contact the police who will return him to the Punjab. Further, while the medical assessment impacted the panel's finding that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in the Punjab, no psychological assessment is in evidence which speaks to the risk to the claimant's psychological health if he were to live outside of the Punjab. |
[6] Again, the findings were open to the Board. It did consider the medical reports submitted by the family physician and, indeed, stated that it played an important part in its finding that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in the Punjab. However, the family doctor, in her medical report, recommended that the applicant obtain a psychological assessment and no such psychological assessment was submitted in evidence to the Board. Accordingly, it was open to the Board to find that there was no psychological assessment with respect to the risk the applicant's psychological health if he were to live outside the Punjab.
[7] The Board did not ignore the totality of the evidence. As the Federal Court of Appeal noted in Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 147 N.R. 317, the fact that some of the documentary evidence is not mentioned in the Board's Reasons is not fatal to its decision. The onus of proof rests on the applicant to show on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country, including the area in which it is alleged to afford an IFA.
[8] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
William P. McKeown
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 14, 1998.