Date: 20050408
Docket: IMM-8151-04
Citation: 2005 FC 468
BETWEEN:
BALWINDER GHOTRA
MANJIT KAUR GHOTRA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] In this case the son says that the Indian police visited the sins of his late father upon him; so much so that he and his widowed mother had to flee to Canada. Their claim for refugee status was dismissed for reason of lack of credibility. Although the reasons given by the Board member are short, too short in my view, they are eminently justified by the record (Sandhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 370, [2005] F.C.J. No. 470 (QL), Pinard J.; Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 34, [2005] F.C.J. No. 58 (QL)).
[2] The late Gurmeet Singh Ghotra was illegally engaged in foreign exchange activities in India. However, he was never charged criminally before he died of a heart attack in 2002. Thereafter, the applicants were subjected, they say, to police intimidation and brutality. The son was arrested on a number of occasions, but again never charged with a crime.
[3] The applicants, who are relatively wealthy, thereafter obtained their legitimate passports and came to Canada in search of asylum. Wealth plays a not insignificant factor in this case because the evidence before the Board member was that the legal system in India works, at least for those who can afford it.
[4] The Board member expressed some scepticism that the son would be arrested for illegal activities of the dead father, and harassed and intimidated. In this regard, the Board member preferred the Danish report that while family members may be intimidated in police searches for those accused of crimes, the same does not hold true when the person has died. It was quite open to prefer country conditions over the story of someone of questionable credibility (Bustamante v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 643 (T.D.)(QL)).
[5] The applicants told a tale of individual petty police corruption and bribery. The member's finding that since the applicants were relatively wealthy they had the means to defend themselves before the courts, or to seek refuge elsewhere, was not unreasonable.
[6] On the one hand, the applicants, who were charged with nothing, claim they would have been hunted down everywhere in India. On the other hand, they were able to obtain their passports quite legally notwithstanding control thereof by the very police they claim to fear. It was not unreasonable for the Board member to seize upon this inherent contradiction.
[7] The Board member was also criticized for not taking into account certain medical information. However, given that it was quite open for the member to find a lack of credibility, there was no particular need to mention these documents which purportedly support a story which was already found wanting.
[8] The points at issue are ones of fact. There was nothing manifestly unreasonable in the member's decision, and there is no question of general importance to certify.
[9] For the above reasons, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed.
"Sean Harrington"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
8 April, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-8151-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: BALWINDER GHOTRA
MANJIT KAUR GHOTRA
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTREAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 6, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER : HARRINGTON J.
DATED: APRIL 8, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Jeffrey Platt FOR APPLICANTS
Mario Blanchard FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jeffrey Platt FOR APPLICANTS
Montreal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney-General of Canada