Date: 20040203
Docket: IMM-5135-02
Citation: 2004 FC 162
Between:
NETAJI N. KEITHELLAKPAM,
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated September 19, 2002, 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] This application for judicial review was heard together with, and on the same evidence as, the applications for judicial review in dockets IMM-5132-02, IMM-5133-02, IMM-5134-02, and IMM-5136-02. These Reasons for Order apply to all the applications and the word "applicants" hereafter includes each individual applicant in each application.
[3] The applicants are citizens of India from the Manipur region. They allege a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, nationality, imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group as young Manipur men.
[4] The Board found that the applicants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection because they have failed to demonstrate that they risk persecution in non-Manipur India and they have a reasonable Internal Flight Alternative ("IFA") in India.
[5] An applicant has the burden of showing that he cannot or will not seek an IFA in his country of residence and the existence of a reasonable IFA puts into question the latter's claim (Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.), and Rasaratnam v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.)). The appropriate test for the assessment of the availability of an IFA has been established by the Federal Court of Appeal in Thirunavukkarasu, at page 597:
. . . IFA must be sought, if it is not unreasonable to do so, in the circumstances of the individual claimant. This test is a flexible one, that takes into account the particular situation of the claimant and the particular country involved. This is an objective test and the onus of proof rests on the claimant on this issue, just as it does with all the other aspects of a refugee claim. Consequently, if there is a safe haven for claimants in their own country, where they would be free of persecution, they are expected to avail themselves of it unless they can show that it is objectively unreasonable for them to do so.
[6] The applicants submit that the Board erred in requiring evidence, in the form of an arrest warrant, that the applicants risk persecution throughout India. However, I believe that the Board's conclusion on this point is reasonable. First, the Board found that there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Manipuri people are targeted, simply for being Manipuri in non-Manipuri India. As a result, the applicants have not established that they would be targeted by the police simply on the basis of racial profiling. In such a case, it is not unreasonable for the Board to request additional evidence that would corroborate the allegation that the applicants nevertheless risk being targeted by police throughout India.
[7] The applicants also submit that the Board's decision should be struck down because the Board has characterized the documentary evidence in a misleading manner. However, a review of the documentary evidence submitted to the Board leads me to conclude that the Board appropriately considered and characterized the evidence in the file. The documentary evidence considered by the Board supports the applicants' allegations that there is intense conflict in Manipur. Indeed, civilians in Manipur are routinely caught between the insurgents and the security forces. However, nothing in the evidence suggests that this conflict has expanded to other parts of India. The article submitted by the applicants does not support the allegations that the applicants would be persecuted throughout India because their case is significantly different from the reported case.
[8] Finally, in the second branch of its analysis the Board thoroughly considered the issue as to whether the IFA would be reasonably accessible to the applicants.
[9] In light of the evidence and the applicants' testimonies, I find that the Board did not err in concluding that there is an IFA for the applicants in India and its conclusion was reached in accordance with the principles set out in Thirunavukkarasu, supra.
[10] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 3, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5135-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: NETAJI N. KEITHELLAKPAM v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December 17, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: February 3, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Me William Sloan FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Michel Pépin FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
William Sloan FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario