Date: 20041020
Docket: IMM-454-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1448
Ottawa, Ontario, October 20, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
PAL SINGH, JAGIR KAUR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration Refugee Board (Board) dated December 23, 2003, where it determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
ISSUE
[2] Did the Board err in assessing the applicants' credibility?
[3] For the following reasons, I answer this question in the negative and I will dismiss this application.
[4] The principal applicant Pal Singh, aged 63, and his wife Jagir Kaur, 62 years old, are citizens of India. The applicants believe to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of their religion (Sikh), their nationality, their membership in a particular social group and their political opinion.
CONTESTED DECISION
[5] The Board rejected the applicants' claim since it did not find the applicants' story credible neither consistent with the documentary evidence.
[6] The applicants alleged that they were harassed and beaten by the police because their whole family was suspected to have links with militants since they were supporters of the Akali Dal Mann party. However, the documentary evidence does not describe the Akali Dal Mann party as a militant organization. To the contrary, this political party is a legal party with representatives elected to the Lok Sabha (the lower house of India's national legislature) in the October 1999 election.
[7] Furthermore, the Board was satisfied that the documentary evidence showed that the conditions in Punjab greatly improved and that the police could no longer act with impunity although a climate of terrorism still persists in the country.
[8] The applicant further alleged that the police came to their farm about two hundred times between 1998 and 2002 to question them. The Board noted that this important fact was not mentioned in the Personal Information Form (PIF). The Board concluded that since the applicants were not well-known personalities in this political party that it was, therefore, not plausible that the police would have harassed them to the point of going to their farm two hundred times.
[9] In addition, the Board concluded that the applicants had an obligation to try to obtain protection from the authorities of their country before claiming refugee protection in another country. In the present case, the applicants confirmed in their testimony that they never filed any complaint against the police. However, the documentary evidence clearly demonstrated that the government has implemented mechanisms to counter police abuse. Moreover, the documentary evidence showed that lawyers and human rights organizations are active in Punjab and that it is possible to obtain justice for such abuses.
[10] Finally, the Board believed that the ease with which they were able to obtain their passport raised a doubt about the veracity of their allegations. The Board stated that if the police suspected them to be linked to the militants and if the police really went to their farm two hundred times to question them and harass them, it would not have been so easy to get their passport.
ANALYSIS
[11] In the present case, the Board's decision is based on the assessment of credibility. Since the applicants' story was also in contradiction with the documentary evidence, the Board did not believe them and dismissed their claim.
[12] It is trite law that the standard of review in cases involving credibility findings is patent unreasonabless.
[13] It is incumbent upon the applicants to prove a well-founded fear of persecution in their country. In order to succeed, it is not enough for a refugee claimant to establish that he has a subjective fear of persecution in his home state, he must also demonstrate that this fear is objectively well founded (Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689).
[14] The Board did not believe the applicants and gave numerous examples why it came to that conclusion. It was open to the Board and I see no reason for the Court's intervention. In this regard, I would like to underline a comment made by Pratte J., in Shahamati v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 415 (C.A.) (QL), which states that the Board is entitled, in assessing credibility, to rely on criteria such as rationality and common sense.
[15] The applicants argue that the Board did not take into consideration the objective condition in Punjab. Furthermore, the applicants mentioned that the Board contradicted itself when it said that even though a climate of terrorism still persists in the country, the evidence points to an improvement of the human rights situation in Punjab. The applicants allege that even if there is an overall improvement of the human rights, problems still exist and the unpredictable and unstable nature of the situation create a truly dangerous environment in Punjab.
[16] In Ward, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada said that "[a]bsent a situation of complete breakdown of state apparatus [...], it should be assumed that the state is capable of protecting a claimant". In the present case, the evidence demonstrates the ability of the state to offer protection to those who suffer police persecution. However, the applicants have not established, on a preponderance of probabilities, that they would not be able to obtain state protection. The applicants did not even seek any kind of help in their country.
[17] Exhibit A-1 (2.1b) and Exhibit A-5 indicate that government has implemented mechanisms in the Punjab to counter police abuse. The evidence also demonstrates that a number of avenues are open to individuals seeking justice. In this regard, at least 60% of cases are settled within four to six months. The Board, therefore, concluded that it was inaccurate to presume that consulting a lawyer or another entity would have caused the applicant to be subjected to police reprisals.
[18] I see no reason for the Court's intervention.
[19] The parties had the opportunity to submit a serious question of general importance and declined to do so. No such question arises here.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No serious question of general importance is certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-454-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: PAL SINGH, JAGIR KAUR
v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 30, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER THE HONOURABLE
AND ORDER: MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
DATED: October 20, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Jeffrey Platt FOR APPLICANT
Evan Liosis FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jeffrey Platt FOR APPLICANT
Montreal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec