Date: 20010525
Docket: IMM-4303-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 527
BETWEEN:
SARABJIT SINGH SAHI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board), dated July 19, 2000, which determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant is a 34 year old Sikh from the Punjab (India) who alleged to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of imputed political opinion. He alleged to have a fear of persecution by the police authorities in India who suspect him of having contacts with the militants. The applicant in his Personal Information Form (PIF) alleged the following.
[3] The applicant was arrested by the police authorities on three separate occasions, on August 31, 1997, December 26, 1998, and July 17, 1999.
[4] Each time he was arrested, he was beaten by the police, interrogated and released after payment of a bribe.
[5] The applicant's parents then decided that he had to leave the village to save his life. On July 31, 1999, the applicant went to his uncle's home in U.P.
[6] In the first week of August and September 1999, the police went to his house inquiring about him. On October 7, 1999, the police arrested his father inquiring about the applicant's whereabouts. His father was released when he gave the applicant's address to the police and his father then advised the applicant to leave his uncle's home.
[7] The applicant went to New Delhi, from where, with the help of an agent, he came to Canada. Upon arriving in Canada on December 7, 1999 he claimed refugee status.
[8] The Board rejected the applicant's Convention refugee claim because it found the applicant's evidence to be neither credible nor trustworthy, noting that when he was asked more details or clarifications, he became "evasive, added significant information that was omitted from the PIF and gave inconsistent and contradictory statements."
[9] In support of this negative credibility finding, the Board concluded that the two isolated incidents mentioned by the applicant do not support his former statement that a "terrorist era" existed in his area before 1997. Furthermore, the Board found that the applicant's testimony was "vague" about police problems and the fact that the situation had improved "a bit" after 1997.
[10] With respect to the alleged incident on July 17, 1999, the Board found the applicant's oral testimony was "sketchy and evasive" as well as being implausible.
[11] The Board found that the applicant provided information at the hearing that had not been mentioned in his PIF, which it considered to be significant. The applicant testified that his father was called to the police station the first week of October 1999, and was threatened with arrest if he failed to bring the applicant to the station within fifteen days. The applicant only provided this information after being questioned by the Board with respect to his reporting requirements after his last release. The Board was not satisfied with the applicant's explanation for not having put the information in his PIF originally, or at the very least providing it at the outset of the hearing.
[12] The Board found that the affidavit submitted by the applicant from the village of Sarpanch did not give any specific dates or details about the alleged incidents and therefore it did not provide support for the allegations.
[13] The Board also considered the medical report provided by the applicant and found that the medical problems described therein for the alleged three incidents against the applicant were not consistent with the applicant's claims of severe torture.
[14] The Board therefore did not assign any probative value to the affidavit of the village of Sarpanch or the medical report.
[15] The sole matter in dispute here is the Board's negative credibility finding against the applicant.
[16] The first element relates to the applicant's vagueness and evasiveness while testifying. With respect to the Board's finding that the applicant's statement of a "terrorist era" in his area could not be supported by the two isolated incidents related by the applicant, I agree with counsel for the respondent that a review of the transcript does not support the Board's determination on this point.
[17] However, in light of the totality of the findings of the Board concerning the applicant's testimony more particularly with regards to the July 17, 1999 incident, I am not prepared to intervene on this error alone.
[18] Further, with regard to the applicant's omission from his PIF, this Court has held that the Board is reasonably entitled to draw a negative inference by reason of an omission of significant evidence from the applicant's PIF. (Lobo v. M.C.I., [1995] F.C.J. No. 597 (F.C.T.D.)). I find that it was reasonably open for the Board to draw a negative inference from the applicant's failure to mention this information prior to being questioned regarding his reporting requirements with the police authorities.
[19] Finally, with regard to the weight given by the Board to the affidavit of the village of Sarpanch and the medical report, this Court has held that if the Board does not believe the underlying facts upon which a medical report is based, it is entirely open to it not to give the medical evidence any weight. (Danailov v. M.E.I., [1993] F.C.J. No. 1019 (F.C.T.D.). Again, I agree with the Board's finding and this Court should not intervene.
[20] For all these reasons, I find that the Board did not err in making a negative credibility finding against the applicant.
[21] This application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 25, 2001.