Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content





Date: 20000905


Docket: IMM-3899-99

BETWEEN:

     MANDEEP SINGH

     Applicant

     - and -


     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent


     REASONS FOR ORDER


NADON J.


[1]      The applicant seeks to set aside a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated July 19, 1999 which held that he was not a Convention refugee, and hence dismissed his refugee claim.

[2]      The applicant, a 26 year old Sikh from the Punjab, is an Indian citizen who seeks refugee status on the basis of his imputed political opinion; according to the applicant, the Indian authorities targeted him because of his brother's militant activities.

[3]      The Board found against the applicant on the following grounds. It found it highly improbable that the applicant would be targeted because of his brother, Gurmit, when Gurmit was never sought out, arrested or imprisoned. The Board noted that during the first police raid of the applicant's house on October 11, 1994, Gurmit was not present and only the applicant and his father were arrested. Further, the Board found it implausible that Gurmit could obtain the release of the applicant without being arrested, questioned or imprisoned.

[4]      On my reading and understanding of the evidence, taken as a whole, I have no doubt that the above conclusion was open to the Board. The findings made by the Board regarding the applicant's credibility are neither perverse or capricious. This is how the refugee hearing officer, at pages 460-462 of the Tribunal Record1, summarized the evidence during his final arguments:

Firstly, the claimant has told us that he's never had any political activity whatsoever. It's not at all clear from what he told us why he would be a target? The target is his brother, who has a profile which right from the start, from the first occasion of the militants arriving would seem to be at that point more suspicious. He was somebody that was at university, which are breeding grounds for people to be recruited into these militant organizations.
Also, it's spoken of that the police finds out that he had S.C.C. certificates and army attachment courses. It would be hard to imagine that at this point in time which was a height of militancy in the Punjab when his brother was going to university, that the authorities would not have taken a keen interest into who was taking these kind of courses and would be very well aware of who was obtaining certificates and who knew how to use army attachments and learning how to use weapons.
And just in the practical aspect of events of the 10th of October 94. We're told that the militants leave at 5:00 o'clock in the morning. That everybody except the brother just stays around the home because they were all shooken [sic] up by what had happened. But he, at 7:00 o'clock, goes to work thirty (30) kilometres away. And he is the one, Kurmit [sic], the brother, the elder brother who's twenty-two (22) at the time, who comes and obtains the release of the claimant with no questioning whatsoever by the police, who are in the business, especially at this time in 94, of finding terrorists. If this were to be true, this to believe that these guys Keystone cops, absolute idiots. They've got the brother who was there at the event, who they've tortured that information out of the claimant to obtain, and yet when he comes to release they don't even take him to further questioning, asking well, maybe he went off with the militants at that point, and especially since he had friends that were militants also.
I don't know how much of the truth we're fully hearing when we're told Kurmit [sic] Singh, the elder brother, is getting involved with Babar Khalsa strictly to gain revenge for his father's death. It would seem that putting on more pressure on the panjayet or obtaining a lawyer to find out what exactly went on with the circumstance of his father's death would have been a more appropriate venue. But we're told that he decides to join the Babar Khalsa and brings Ankar Singh to the home knowing that his brother had already been taken under arrest when militants had appeared at the home previously, knowing that this would endanger his family. And supposedly this the last time we hear of Kurmit [sic] after the 19th of January 95. He is the target of the police, since he is the one that escapes, where we know there were militants involved who were killed. In documentation we have, the claimant would not be sought out by the police because of his brother's militant activities at this present time in the Punjab.
You've heard his response to the possibility of IFA. It was rather unclear. At one point he says we don't have family and we don't have money. But yet there is money obtained, six-hundred-and-fifty-thousand (650,000) rupees, close to twenty-thousand (20,000) dollars Canadian which is a great deal of money to obtain lodging of some sort. From documentation we know that there is no identification that's required obligatorily. Nor are there verifications that are done when one wants to obtain lodgings. Plus the Sikh community worldwide is a very closely knit community where one helps another Sikh out. And that would seem to be even more the case where there's strength in numbers, where we know there's four to five-million in other parts of India. Over a million in Delhi.
The rest, you have to look at the probative value of what we have in the documentation with what you've heard. I won't repeat the rest because you're aware of the documentation and we've presented before in other cases with counsel and this panel. Thank you.

[5]      I cannot say nor conclude, based on the evidence, that these arguments are not reasonable. At the very least, they could be made by the refugee hearing officer and hence, could be accepted by the Board. In view of my determination with respect to the credibility issue, I need not address the other issues raised by the applicant.

[6]      For these reasons, this application shall be denied.


     "Marc Nadon"

     JUDGE

OTTAWA, Ontario

September 05, 2000

__________________

1      Pages 50 to 62 of the transcript of the evidence adduced on June 7, 1999.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.