Date: 20010816
Docket: IMM-4784-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 882
Between:
GURPAL SINGH BHANGO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated August 14, 2000, in which the Board determined he was not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of India, alleges a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his imputed political opinions and membership in a particular social group.
[3] The Board concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution should he return to India, on the basis of the present-day situation in that country. The Board advanced the following reasoning for its decision:
- The documentary evidence indicates on the whole that the situation in Punjab has been relatively peaceful since 1993. Police are only interested in high profile militants and Sikhs with slight perceived connections to militancy would no longer be targets.
- Virtually no high profile militant suspects remain in the Punjab or India.
- People who were forced to provide shelter to militants during the height of insurgency should now not be considered high profile militants.
- Exhibit A-14 corroborated the general finding that militancy in the Punjab is virtually non existent today and only high profile militants are at risk.
- The documents submitted by the applicant confirm the police brutality during the height of militancy between 1984 and 1994 and mention that the situation in Kashmir continues to be problematic, however they in no way contradict the exhibits submitted by the Refugee Claims Officer (the RCO).
[4] Seeing that the applicant has no political affiliations or involvement and because it had no reason to doubt the above-mentioned exhibits, the Board concluded that the applicant does not have any type of profile which would make him a suspect or target of police if he were to return to India.
[5] In Chan v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593, at page 659, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the fear of persecution, both subjectively and objectively, must be established by a preponderance of probabilities in order for the applicant to meet his or her case. Based on the above observations, I am satisfied that the Board accepted that the applicant established his subjective fear. Nonetheless, it is evident that the Board determined that, due to changed country conditions, there was no objective risk of persecution for the applicant in India should he return to that country. This is fundamentally a finding of fact resulting from a study of evidence on the current country conditions (see Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at page 723).
[6] The impugned decision seems to be generally well supported by the evidence emanating from the information supplied by the applicant himself and the documents filed by the RCO. In fact, the documentation cited by the applicant to demonstrate his fear of persecution do nothing more than confirm the past persecution he has experienced, which was accepted by the Board, without in any way contradicting the Board's findings with respect to the current situation in the Punjab. This much is noted by the Board in its reasons when it states:
The claimant submitted a number of newspaper clippings regarding militancy in the Punjab. The articles speak of police brutality during the height of militancy between 1984 and 1994. They also speak of the situation in Kashmir which continues to be problematic. They also deal with the arrest of hard core terrorists and known militants from the Babbar Khalsa and the Khalistan Zindadad Force. These newspaper clippings paint a similar picture to the exhibits submitted by the RCO.
[7] In Sukhraj Singh v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (January 10, 1997), IMM-2803-95, Lutfy J. stated:
The Tribunal, in my opinion, received sufficient evidence to support its decision concerning the changed circumstances in India. The record also establishes some contrary evidence on the same issue, including family correspondence warning the applicant not to return to India. However, it is not the function of this Court to determine whether a different view could have been reached from an analysis of the same evidence. In my view, there is no reviewable error in the manner in which the Tribunal reached its decision.
[8] In light of its extensively motivated findings in this case, I am unable to conclude that the Board's decision was perverse, capricious, or made without regard to the evidence adduced before it (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 at 316 (F.C.A.) and paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7).
[9] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 16, 2001
Date: 20010816
Docket: IMM-4784-00
Ottawa, Ontario, this 16th day of August, 2001
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
GURPAL SINGH BHANGO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated August 14, 2000, in which it determined the applicant was not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
JUDGE