Date: 19990305
Docket: IMM-5455-97
BETWEEN:
SURINDER PAL SINGH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
GIBSON J.:
[1] These reasons arise out of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "CRDD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board wherein the CRDD determined the applicant not to be a Convention refugee within the meaning assigned to that term in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act1. The decision of the CRDD is dated the 5th of December, 1997.
[2] The applicant is a Sikh from the Punjab region of India. He bases his claim to Convention refugee status on an alleged well-founded fear of persecution in India by reason of his perceived political opinion.
[3] The CRDD wrote:
| The claimant is a farmer with [sic] who has taken no part in political or militant activity in Punjab. Prior to December 1994, he lived a peaceful life without fear of police. He was detained and beaten on three occasions by Punjab police. He then moved to a suburb of Delhi, where he lived quietly from December 1995, until his departure from India in July 1996. He testified that he stayed indoors in the daytime, but did go out sometimes at night. The panel considered the claimant"s evidence, and concluded that he was not in fact in hiding while he was in the Delhi area. The claimant was never arrested in the more than six months that he stayed in the Delhi area. |
[4] The CRDD, on the basis of documentary evidence before it, reviewed the profiles of Sikhs at risk at the hands of police in India and concluded that the applicant did not fit those profiles. It concluded:
| Given that the claimant"s profile bears no relation to the profile of persons at risk outlined by experts in the documentary evidence before it, the panel believes it is implausible that the Punjab police would travel to Delhi, to find the claimant (or pursue the claimant in cooperation with other police forces in India). The claimant was never involved in militant or other subversive activity. No evidence was adduced at the hearing to indicate that the claimant was on a list of persons wanted by the police. The panel noted that the claimant lived in the Delhi area for over six months without any police attention. |
| ... |
For all the above reasons, the panel concludes that there is no more than a mere possibility that the claimant would face persecution if he were to resettle outside Punjab in Delhi.
[5] The CRDD further concluded that it would not be unreasonable for the claimant to live and work in India outside of Punjab. It noted that the applicant has ten years of formal schooling, that he is experienced as a self-employed farmer and that he learned skills as a labourer in Canada.
[6] At the close of the hearing, I dismissed the applicant"s application for judicial review without certification of a question. I provided brief oral reasons. To comply with section 51 of the Federal Court Act , the following is an edited version of those reasons.
[7] THE COURT: I am pleased to note that counsel are in agreement, at least this far: whether or not this decision is subject to or reflects reviewable error is centered on the issue of the finding regarding an internal flight alternative. From that point, counsel on behalf of the applicant, and counsel for the respondent join issue. Counsel for the applicant cites reviewable error in that finding, both reviewable error of fact and reviewable error of law, and urges me to the conclusion that the reviewable error of fact, or the most prominent reviewable error of fact, is in the finding that while the applicant was in Delhi he was not in hiding.
[8] The CRDD does not suggest in its reasons that the applicant was living an open life. If it were to have suggested so, that would clearly be contrary to the evidence. On the other hand, the applicant"s own evidence was that he did go outside the home where he was staying, albeit after dusk and at night. The finding of the CRDD to the effect that the applicant lived without incident in Delhi for more than six months was not urged to be inconsistent with the evidence.
[9] The CRDD reviewed, at some length, documentary evidence as to those Sikhs from the Punjab most at risk and concluded that the applicant did not fit the profile of those described by the documentary evidence as being most at risk. Counsel for the applicant acknowledged that there was no evidence before the CRDD to the effect that the applicant was on a "wanted" list. The applicant was not a family member of someone suspected of anti-state activities. He was an individual forced to provide shelter for militants during the height of the insurgency, but such persons were clearly described in the documentary evidence as not being high-profile suspects. The CRDD cites documentary evidence to the effect that further militant operations, that is, by the police, will be highly focussed targeting high-ranking officials and not likely to affect ordinary individuals, and certainly the evidence did not suggest the applicant was a high-ranking official or anyone other than an ordinary individual.
[10] Implicit in the CRDD"s reasoning is an acknowledgement of changed country conditions. In hindsight, I think it is easy to conclude that the reasons of the CRDD in this matter could have been more fulsome, could more closely have examined the issue of whether or not, against an objective standard, the applicant was a person who could be considered to be at risk of persecution. The CRDD certainly did not question his subjective fear.
[11] All of that being said, I can come to no other conclusion on the evidence as I have reviewed it and on the basis of the representations that I have heard today but that the decision of the CRDD in this matter was reasonably open to it. I find no error of law, nor can I find that the findings of fact made by the CRDD can be described as perverse or capricious or made without regard to the material before it. In the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[12] The state of law regarding the test for internal flight alternative is clear and is reflected in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)2. It is further amplified in Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)3. The elements of the test for a finding of internal flight alternative are well defined. I find no basis to certify a question. I have not the slightest doubt that in the eyes of the applicant the issues raised in this application for judicial review are serious questions, but that is not sufficient. They must also be of general importance. The determinations here turn on the particular facts of this matter, not facts that are such as to make this a matter of general importance. No question will be certified.
_________________________
Frederick E. Gibson
Ottawa, Ontario
March 5, 1999
__________________