Date: 19990408
Docket: IMM-3252-98
BETWEEN:
DALBIR SINGH DHESI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SHARLOW J.:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of India and entered Canada in May of 1996. His home in India was in the village of Raipur Pharala, District Jalandhar, Punjab. At the time of his entry into Canada, most of his family still lived in that village or in other villages not far away. In the early 1990s the applicant's village was the scene of militant Sikh and police activity. In 1993, he was rounded up with all the other men in the village and questioned by police after an armed encounter with militants. In October of 1995, militants left a police motorcycle at the farm of the applicant's cousin, Makhan Singh, in nearby Chachowal. Later, Makhan Singh and some relatives who lived nearby were detained and tortured by police.
[3] Makhan Singh fled India in November 1995. In January 1996, the applicant was arrested in the course of a police search for Makhan Singh. He was kept in custody for one day during which he was badly mistreated by the police. He was released after the intervention of the panchayat and the payment of a bribe by his father.
[4] After being released, the applicant left his village and went to the farm of his maternal uncle in Uttar Pradesh. He worked on his uncle's farm for about four months. On one occasion while he and his uncle were away, the police came to the farm looking for him, and threatened his family members with arrest if the applicant was found there. The applicant left his uncle's farm and stayed with various relatives for short periods while his flight to Canada was arranged.
[5] He later learned from his wife that the police have returned to the village every four to six weeks looking for him, and on one occasion she was roughly treated by the police. However, the police left after some people nearby berated them.
[6] The CRDD concluded that there is more than a mere possibility that the applicant would suffer persecution at the hands of the police if he were to return to his village. However, the CRDD denied the applicant's claim because of the existence of an internal flight alternative available to the applicant in Delhi or Bombay.
[7] It is apparent from the reasons for decision that in considering the question of internal flight alternative, the CRDD had regard to the two tests from Rasaratnam v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (F.C.A.). The first test is whether the applicant might face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed internal flight alternative. The second is whether in all the circumstances, including circumstances peculiar to the applicant, it would not be unreasonable for him to move there.
[8] Counsel for the applicant argued that the CRDD erred in its assessment of the evidence relating to these two tests, and in certain respects disregarded the evidence altogether. Counsel for the Minister argued that all of the evidence was considered and its relative weight was solely for the CRDD to determine.
[9] With respect to the possibility of persecution in Delhi or Bombay, the CRDD considered documentary evidence indicating that the only people from Punjab who are at risk of police persecution outside Punjab are militants, close associates of militants, prominent political and human rights activists, and perhaps those who were arrested in the early 1990s and are presently on a policy list of wanted suspects. The CRDD's assessment of the applicant's oral and documentary evidence was that he did not meet any of these descriptions, and therefore probably would not be at risk of persecution in Bombay or Delhi.
[10] In support of this conclusion the CRDD cited several facts: the relatively low level of interest the police had in the applicant, the short duration of his detention, the apparent intimidation of the police when neighbours berated them for their rough treatment of the applicant's wife, the ease with which the applicant moved around the country on public transportation after his release from detention, and the ease with which he left the country despite the fact that the passport he was then travelling with had his own picture with the distinctive Sikh turban and beard.
[11] With respect to the second test, the CRDD concluded that there were no circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the applicant to settle in Delhi or Bombay. The CRDD considered the documentary evidence that Sikhs outside Punjab are subject to a certain degree of discrimination, but they concluded that did not amount to persecution. They said that as a farm worker, he probably would be able to find unskilled work in either city. They noted that while the applicant does not speak Hindi, that language is linguistically similar to the applicant's language, Punjabi, and so language would not be an unreasonable language barrier to his settlement in those cities.
[12] The CRDD's conclusions on the question of internal flight alternative were reasonably supportable on the evidence before them. There is no basis for concluding that any relevant evidence was misunderstood or disregarded.
[13] The application for judicial review is dismissed. In my opinion, this case does not involve a serious question of general importance.
Karen R. Sharlow
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
April 8, 1999