Date: 20000719
Docket: IMM-3895-99
Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday the 19th day of July, 2000
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Reed
BETWEEN:
BIKKAR SINGH BHANDAL
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
| The application for judicial review is dismissed. |
"B. Reed"
J.F.C.C.
Date: 20000719
Docket: IMM-3895-99
BETWEEN:
BIKKAR SINGH BHANDAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED, J.:
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Division Board of the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated July 21, 1999, determining that the applicant was not a Convention Refugee.
The applicant"s claim was based on his perceived political opinion, religion, and membership in a particular social group (a Sikh from the Punjab).
This is the second hearing of the applicant. His first claim was heard on July 2, 1997, and rejected on September 11, 1997. On September 28, 1998, the applicant was granted a new hearing on judicial review. There were two sittings of the Board, one on April 6, 1999 and the second on May 6, 1999.
The issues considered by the Board in determining whether the applicant was a Convention refugee were: the applicant"s identity as a Punjab Sikh; the objective basis of his claim; the credibility of the applicant"s testimony; the possibility of an internal flight alternative ("IFA"). The Board determined that the applicant was a Punjab Sikh, but found that the applicant was not credible.
In finding that the applicant was not credible, the Board noted that the applicant had to be repeatedly asked questions and had to be asked to focus on the questions from the RCO and the Board members, whereas when asked questions by his counsel he was able to give direct answers. The Board wrote:
| . . . |
| The panel did not find the claimant credible. The claimant was unresponsive and evasive; further there were inconsistencies in his testimony and contradictions between events described and behavioural [sic] responses to those events. |
| . . . |
While it is often difficult to determine the tenor of the hearing before a tribunal from the transcript, in this case, a reading of the transcript supports the Board's conclusions that inconsistencies and unfocused answers occurred.
The Board cited five specific findings in support of its conclusion that the applicant lacked credibility: (1) he had given inconsistent evidence concerning the cause of his mother becoming bed ridden; (2) it was implausible that the applicant's family would not have moved from the region where they lived given the severity of the abuse the applicant alleges they suffered; (3) the affidavit evidence the applicant filed in support of his claim was self-serving and not persuasive; (4) there was no persuasive evidence connecting the amputation of his wife's hand with police harassment; (5) the claimant's evidence concerning the situation in the Punjab does not accord with the documentary evidence, which reports that there has been a lessening of conflict in the Punjab, and in any event, the applicant was not a high profile suspect.
The transcript supports the Board"s finding that the applicant gave inconsistent statements concerning the cause of his mother being bed-ridden.
Also, as counsel for the respondent noted, if the implausibility finding concerning the family"s failure to move was the only basis for the Board"s decision, that decision could not stand.
The applicant explained that his father and forefathers had lived in the village for over a hundred years; that his father was attached to the land, which his family had owned for generations, and did not want to sell his land; that the family had no where else to go; that his father was old and his mother bed-ridden.
I cannot characterize the Board"s decision that it did not understand why the family had not moved as unreasonable in light of the brutal treatment the applicant stated the family was receiving. However, given the applicant's explanation as to why the family would not move, the Board"s implausibility finding is not one that carries a great deal of weight.
The Board is entitled to accord little weight to the affidavits. The Board noted that the applicant had produced four affidavits, two of which were sworn to two months before the hearing in March 1999, some twenty months after his arrival in Canada. The other two were sworn to between the two sittings of the Board. The Board found it implausible that the applicant could not have produced this corroborative evidence sooner - even in time for the first claim. The Board found that in light of its other adverse findings that it placed no weight on this evidence as it appear to be a last-minute self-serving attempt to shore up his claim. This conclusion by the Board was not unreasonable.
The Board's finding that it could not connect the amputation of the wife's hand to police harassment is also a reasonable conclusion. The only evidence supporting such connection is that given by the applicant. Since the Board came to the conclusion that the applicant's evidence was not credible and that it was self-serving, it is entitled to reject his evidence concerning why that tragedy occurred.
With respect to the evaluation of the documentary evidence, the Board preferred the documentary evidence to the applicant"s testimony. It noted that according to the documentary evidence the police in 1991-92 had virtually eliminated terrorist activities; that by mid-1993, few if any terrorist groups were operating in Punjab; that while future Sikh military action could not be discounted, militancy had been largely eliminated; that militant organizations had been shut down, weaken or reduced in size. The Board also noted that the documentary evidence indicated that people who are not high profile militant suspects are not seen as being at risk in Punjab. It went on to note that there is mention of religious strife in Jammu and Kashmir, but that Punjab was not included and that the evidence was that since early 1990's human rights abuses in Punjab had been acknowledged and condemned. The Board noted that the applicant could not be considered as having a high profile. The Board concluded that it did not believe that the applicant"s family was being bothered by the Punjabi police for any reason relating to the applicant's disappearance from India.
The Board did not discount the documentary evidence that described some continuing unrest in the Punjab. It based its decision on the documentary evidence as a whole. Counsel for the applicant cited passages from the documentary evidence that depict a more discordant picture than that described by the Board. However there are also passages in that evidence, some of them in the same documents to which counsel for the applicant referred, that describe a minimal amount of conflict. The Board fairly evaluated the documentary evidence and it is entitled to prefer that evidence to that given by the applicant.
Reference was also made to the medical evidence. Again the Board correctly evaluated it.
For the reasons given, the application for judicial review was dismissed.
"B. Reed"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
July 19, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-3895-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: BIKKAR SINGH BHANDAL |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED J. |
DATED: WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2000
| APPEARANCES BY: Jaswinder Gill |
| For the Applicant |
| Mr. David Tyndale |
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Jackman, Waldman & Associates |
Barristers & Solicitors
281 Eglinton Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1L3
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000719
Docket: IMM-3895-99
BETWEEN:
| BIKKAR SINGH BHANDAL |
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |