PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIMON NOËL
BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”) of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) dated October 13, 2005. This was a decision dismissing the claim for refugee protection presented by Ravinder Singh (“applicant”). According to the RPD, the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. The RPD based its decision on considerations related to the applicant’s credibility.
I. Issue
[2] The only issue is the following:
- Did the RPD err in concluding the applicant was not credible?
II. Facts
[3] The applicant is of Indian origin. He was born in the state of Punjab, India.
[4] On October 10, 2001, some persons stole his motorcycle and threatened him with a firearm. The applicant then went home to discuss the matter with his family. Together with his father, he decided to explain what happened to the village Sarpanch, who recommended waiting until the next day before filing a complaint with the police.
[5] When he returned home that evening, the police were already there. The applicant was arrested, taken to the police station, and tortured for his imputed participation in a terrorist group. The applicant was released on payment of a bribe and as a result of intervention by his family and members of the village council. He was treated by a doctor.
[6] The applicant was arrested, detained and tortured three other times: on February 1, 2002, April 26, 2003, and August 12, 2003. On each occasion, he was released in circumstances similar to those in October 2001. The police went to the applicant’s home on several occasions to harass and question family members.
[7] In June 2004, the applicant met with the village Sarpanch to bring charges against the police. Shortly thereafter, the police became aware of his intentions and returned to his family’s home. Since the applicant was not there, the police demanded that he be surrendered to them, all the while threatening to kill him.
[8] The applicant fled to Delhi, where he met a human smuggler. He arrived in Canada on September 19, 2004 and made a claim for refugee protection on January 28, 2005.
III. Analysis
[9] As far as the applicant’s credibility is concerned, the RPD concluded as follows (I include in parentheses the relevant pages of the hearing transcript and the RPD record):
- In general, the RPD noted there was a lack of evidence on record showing that the police were convinced the applicant had associated with one or several terrorist groups;
- Likewise, the RPD noted that the applicant submitted little credible or plausible evidence on the whole showing that he was the victim of harassment and that he was detained and brutalized;
- The RPD did not believe that the police would suddenly start to torment the applicant considering he admitted that neither he nor members of his family had any connections with terrorist groups and that they had lived in the Punjab for years without any problems (RPD record, pages 203, 215, 224, 225, 227);
- The RPD found it was not credible that the applicant could, within one hour, have his motorcycle stolen at gunpoint, return home two kilometres from there, drink a glass of water, discuss matters with his father, walk to the Sarpanch’s home, wake the Sarpanch, discuss matters with him and agree to make a complaint only the next day, and finally return home, where the police were resolutely waiting for him (RPD record, pages 205 to 216);
- The RPD found it implausible that the applicant was unable to give any information about the identity of the persons who stole his motorcycle, the reasons leading the police to accuse him of being associated with a group of terrorists, or the connection he was suspected of having with these groups (RPD record, pages 203 et seq., 217, 222, 233);
- The RPD found it implausible that the persons who participated in having the applicant released on four occasions did not ask any questions about the reasons for which the police were after the applicant (RPD record, page 226);
- The RPD was of the opinion that the applicant’s behaviour was not consistent with that of a person who fears being persecuted, because everything the applicant did was for the purpose of going to Canada (and nowhere else);
- The applicant let a considerable amount of time elapse before acting when he noted that he was late in obtaining the documents required for his trip (RPD record, pages 195 to 201, 234 to 237), given that he alleges having been savagely beaten by the police and fears that the police would come after him once again;
- The applicant delayed making a claim for refugee protection once he arrived in Canada, and his explanations on this point are vague (RPD record, pages 237 to 241);
- Finally, the RPD noted that the applicant applied for a passport before the date on which his problems began (RPD record, pages 241 to 243).
[10] Having reread all the relevant documents and heard the parties, I conclude that the RPD did not make any error in concluding that the applicant was not credible, considering the applicable standard of review, which is that of patent unreasonableness (Thavarathinam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1469, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1866 (F.C.A.), at paragraph 10; Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 732 (F.C.A.), at paragraph 4). Several elements seriously undermine the applicant’s credibility, and he had the chance to give his version of the facts concerning each one of these elements. Although some of the elements on which the decision is based are less convincing, and even though the RPD committed minor errors of fact, I do not believe that the overall reasoning is affected or that intervention is warranted. The decision is, on the whole, correct.
[11] In his written submissions and at the hearing, the applicant claimed that he had left India mainly because he had been persecuted by the police as a result of the complaint he wanted to make to the authorities in June 2004. The applicant claimed to have evidence to support his complaint, that is, a letter from his lawyer in India, as well as his medical certificates and an affidavit from the village Sarpanch (RPD record, pages 62 to 65). In doing so, it seems that the applicant is seeking to isolate one of the alleged grounds for leaving India from the other facts in his story. Apparently, the applicant believes he can convince the Court that the RPD did not deal with a major aspect of the claim in its decision.
[12] However, a study of the record shows it is not quite clear that what prompted the applicant to leave India was above all the episode in June 2004. In fact, several elements seem to show quite the contrary, as the applicant alleged before the RPD that he had left India because of the torture suffered in detention and because of his imputed connections with terrorists groups:
- The narrative included in the applicant’s Personal Information Form (PIF) (RPD record, pages 20 to 21) shows that he was “fed [up] from this routine”, referring to the multiple arrests and tortures,
- The crux of the applicant’s narrative recounts his torture and detention at the hands of the authorities (RPD record, pages 20 to 21);
- At the hearing, the applicant stated that he decided to permanently leave India in June 2002 and that he made this decision because of the harassment he suffered because of his imputed connections with terrorists groups (RPD record, pages 95 and 201);
- When he was questioned about the events of June 2004, the applicant had a chance to give many details but did not at any time mention that his complaint to the police was the trigger for his departure from India (RPD record, page 236);
- In his submissions at the hearing before the RPD, the counsel for the applicant emphasized the events in 2002 and not on those in 2004 to explain the applicant’s decision to leave India (RPD record, page 250).
In this context, it is quite understandable that the RPD did not deal with the June 2004 events in more detail. In my opinion, the RPD took into consideration all the relevant facts, including the applicant’s alleged attempt to bring charges against the police and the evidence submitted by the applicant. In fact, this was mentioned by the RPD at page 5 of its decision. Therefore, the RPD was aware of the applicant’s alleged attempt to bring charges against the police. By emphasizing on judicial review one facet of his claim that seemed of less importance to the RPD, the applicant belatedly introduced a new version of the facts and only added to the confusion inherent in his narrative. In addition, even if this new version were held to be accurate, the applicant’s behaviour, as the RPD noted, was nevertheless inconsistent with that of a person who fears being persecuted.
[13] In all, the RPD rendered a well-supported decision concerning the applicant’s credibility and assessed the evidence as submitted. The elements invoked in support of the decision seem to be quite sufficient, and in this context I do not think that it was necessary for the RPD to specifically deal with the medical certificates, the letter from the applicant’s lawyer in India, or the affidavit of the village Sarpanch (see Florea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598).
[14] The parties were asked to suggest a question for certification, but no question was suggested.
[15] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed, and no question is certified.
JUDGMENT
THE COURTS ORDERS THAT:
- The application for judicial review be dismissed, and no question is certified.
Certified true translation
Michael Palles
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6637-05
STYLE OF CAUSE:
RAVINDER SINGH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal
DATE OF HEARING: May 16, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Simon Noël
APPEARANCES:
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Michel Le Brun Montréal |
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
Department of Justice - Montréal |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|