Date: 20020110
Docket: IMM-1053-01
Ottawa, Ontario, January 10, 2002
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
Narinder Singh UBHI
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision by the Refugee Division on January 31, 2001 that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee is dismissed.
|
YVON PINARD JUDGE |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20020110
Docket: IMM-1053-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 23
Between:
Narinder Singh UBHI
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] The application for judicial review is from a decision by the Refugee Division on January 31, 2001 that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee as defined in s. 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The plaintiff is a citizen of the Punjab in India. He alleged he had a well-founded fear of persecution in his country for his alleged political opinions.
[3] Although no express distinction is made, it can easily be seen from an intelligent reading of the decision that the Refugee Division concluded both that the plaintiff had no subjective fear of persecution and that there was no objective fear.
[4] As to the absence of a subjective fear the tribunal, noting various improbabilities and contradictions, found the plaintiff not credible. The tribunal regarded one of these probabilities as fundamental, going so far as to say:
. . . This is the cornerstone on which rests all other allegations.
[5] The improbability in question resulted from the specialized knowledge which the tribunal said it had of the notoriety of the two terrorists sheltered by the plaintiff. In this connection counsel for the defendant admitted at the hearing in this Court that in view of the special circumstances the tribunal had erred. I at once expressed the opinion that the error, relating to a factual situation regarded as crucial by the tribunal, was sufficiently serious to undermine the tribunal's finding about the lack of a subjective fear by the plaintiff.
[6] Additionally, on the question of objective fear, in view of the changed circumstances in the Punjab the Refugee Division said the following:
Moreover, the panel wonders if the claimant has been in India recently, considering his ignorance of numerous facts about Punjab, and particularly about the terrorists movement. The claimant was confronted to documentary evidence from international sources (Exhibit A-2) [footnote omitted] showing that the Movement for an independent Khalistan was no longer part of the political agenda in the Punjab, that peace was restored and that the people at risk are either high profile militants or close assistants or associates. Some family members can also be at risk. However, this applies mostly to families who had members active in the secessionist movement. Moreover, if the police truly believed that the claimant was associated with terrorists, they would not have released him.
. . . . .
The claimant alleges in his submissions that the Punjab police ask questions about him and that they will kill him, if he returns over there. However, documentary evidence and the reports from the Department of State of the USA, A-1 [footnote omitted], clearly states that the pattern of the disappearance and killing in the Punjab has ended.
[7] As I consider that these passages from the decision a quo are entirely supported by the documentary evidence (Exhibits A-1 and A-2), the transcript of the hearing before the Refugee Division, the affidavit of the plaintiff himself establishing that he had no political profile, and finally the case law (in particular Bains v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1999] F.C.J. No. 536 (T.D.) (QL) and Singh v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1997] F.C.J. No. 25 (T.D.) (QL)), I feel that the absence of an objective fear by the plaintiff was fully established and, regardless of his subjective fear, that sufficed for the tribunal to dismiss his refugee status claim.
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
|
YVON PINARD JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 10, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: IMM-1053-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Narinder Singh Ubhi
- and -
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 22, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: January 10, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Jacques Beauchemin FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Isabelle Brochu FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Alarie, Legault, Beauchemin, Paquin, Jobin, FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Brisson et Philpot
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada