Date: 20040426
Docket: IMM-1994-03
Citation: 2004 FC 610
BETWEEN:
MANRAJ SINGH, domiciled and residing at
1060 Crémazie #102, Montreal, Quebec, H3N 1A4,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION, c/o Justice Department,
Guy Favreau Complex, 200 West René-Lévesque,
East Tower, 5th Floor, Montreal, Quebec, H2Z 1X4,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated March 6, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Manraj Singh (the applicant) is a citizen of India who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group.
[3] The Board concluded that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" because it found that he did not have the profile of a person who risks persecution in Punjab and that therefore, his claim is not credible.
[4] The applicant alleges that the Board ignored and misinterpreted the documentary evidence. Specifically, the applicant alleges that the Board failed to mention evidence suggesting that police routinely make use of torture when they investigate suspects and that the applicant faces a risk from a militancy that, albeit defeated, remains active. It has been established that a tribunal must be presumed to have considered all of the evidence that was presented to it, and it is not obligated to mention in its reasons all the evidence it has taken into account before rendering its decision (see Taher v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1433 (T.D.) (QL)). The assessment and the weight to be given documents is a matter within the discretion of the tribunal evaluating the evidence (Aleshkina v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 784 (T.D.) (QL)). A review of the Board's decision and the hearing transcripts reveals that the Board appropriately considered all of the documentary evidence before rendering its decision. It is important to note that the applicant's counsel made representations with respect to the Amnesty International report and that the Board specifically addresses the issue of torture raised in that report. Furthermore, the Board clearly explained in its reasons, with specific reference to the documentary evidence it considered, why it found that the applicant's claim was implausible in light of that evidence. It is settled law that the Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the applicant (see Zhou v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (July 18, 1994), A-492-91). Consequently, I find that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Board erred in its consideration of the documentary evidence in this case.
[5] The applicant also alleges that the Board erred in concluding that he does not have the profile of a person at risk in Punjab because he has an imputed connection with the Khalistan movement and he is a relative of a person who is imputed to be in the Khalistan movement, his brother. The respondent submits that the applicant's allegation contradicts the information provided in his Personal Information Form (PIF). Indeed according to his PIF, the applicant was persecuted because the authorities accused him of sheltering militants rather than because he or his brother were deemed members of the Khalistan movement. Consequently, I find that the applicant's allegation on this point is unfounded.
[6] Finally, a review of the transcripts of the hearing reveals that the Board requested explanations from the applicant with respect to the medical reports submitted as evidence. Furthermore, extensive representations were made by the applicant's counsel with respect to the medical evidence. Consequently, the applicant's allegation that the Board dismissed and ignored this medical evidence is unfounded.
[7] For all the above reasons, this Court will not substitute its own appreciation of the facts to that of the Board, as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the latter's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7).
[8] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 26, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1994-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MANRAJ SINGH v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 23, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: April 26, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Me Jean-François Bertrand FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Marie-Nicole Moreau FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
BERTRAND, DESLAURIERS FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario