Date: 20011019
Docket: IMM-5942-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1138
BETWEEN:
GURPREET SINGH SHERGILL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] The applicant attacks a decision of the Refugee Division (the "Refugee Division") rendered on October 16, 2000. The Refugee Division found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee. More particularly, the Refugee Division found that the applicant was not credible.
[2] The applicant, born April 30, 1973, is a citizen of India. He left his country on June 15, 1999 and claimed refugee status in Canada on June 21, 1999.
[3] For the following reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. First, at the outset of its analysis, on page 3 of its reasons, the Refugee Division states:
[Translation]
In the panel's opinion, the claimant is not credible because his testimony appeared to us to be improbable. Furthermore, we believe the claimant relied on two newspaper articles (P-7) to develop his story.
Also, in the course of his testimony, the claimant was evasive, having some difficulty in answering simple questions concerning particulars that did not appear in his Personal Information Form (PIF). It was evident that he had learned his PIF by heart and constantly referred to it instead of answering the questions that were asked.
[4] After carefully reading through several times the applicant's testimony given on August 29, 2000, I can only agree with the Refugee Division's observations concerning his testimony. There can be no doubt that the applicant was "evasive" and that he had great difficulty answering the questions put to him by the panel members.
[5] Secondly, the applicant criticizes the Refugee Division for not questioning him about the newspaper article filed as exhibit P-7. At paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of his affidavit, the applicant states:
[Translation]
13. In regard to exhibit P-7, another newspaper article, the panel asks itself in its decision why the newspaper article that was filed in evidence was not complete;
14. During the hearing, I was not asked whether I could complete it;
15. If this request had been put to me, I could have completed it and even now I could do so. The panel therefore simply based itself on a technical error in denying my claim when I had proved the essential ingredients of my claim.
[6] Contrary to the applicant's statements, the Refugee Division did indeed question him concerning the newspaper article filed as exhibit P-7. At pages 35 et seq. of the transcript (785 et seq. of the panel record), the Refugee Division questions the applicant concerning the newspaper article dated September 20, 1995. More particularly, at pages 35 to 38 of the transcript, we find the following questions and answers:
Q. Sir, there's a newspaper article here dated the twentieth (20th) of September nineteen ninety-five (1995), that says that Nasib Singh was arrested in the Bian Singh murder case. First of all the article is not complete, unless I'm missing ... I haven't seen it, but it says here: "Balance on page fourteen (14), column two (2)." I don't see the balance of the article.
A. That was not found. Whatever was found my father it extracted and sent.
Q. Well, if your father ... Where is the original? Do you have the original of this?
[...]
A. There's no original.
Q. The article dealing with Bian Singh is it this article here?
A. Yes.
Q. And is the ... Okay. Because it says: "Balance on page fourteen (14), column two (2)."
[...]
A. Just this much was found according to the (inaudible).
Q. Well, you know, missing a part of an article is very important, Sir. What surprises me ... All right. Yes. You want to answer that?
A. When I got all this written ... Regender said that: "If you can get proof of this, even a small proof, if you can get it." Then I told my father. Whatever he found he sent that much.
Q. You know where your father found these articles?
A. About this I don't know.
[7] Here is what the Refugee Division said about exhibit P-7, at page 3 of its decision:
[Translation] First, the panel commented to the claimant that this article was incomplete and questioned him about this. The claimant said he had filed what he had managed to obtain. However, he was unable to explain to the panel's satisfaction why the article could not be obtained in full.
[8] Based on a reading of the questions and answers reproduced above, there can be no doubt that the Refugee Division did not err in any way in criticizing the applicant for producing an incomplete article.
[9] Thirdly, the applicant criticizes the Refugee Division for not assigning any probative value to exhibits P-3 and P-10, an affidavit of the Sarpanch of the applicant's village, dated October 22, 1999 (P-3) and a medical certificate dated August 23, 2000 (P-10). At page 5 of its decision, here is how the Refugee Division disposes of exhibits P-3 and P-10:
[Translation] The panel also considered the documents filed in evidence by the claimant. The lack of credibility in the story leads the panel to assign no probative value to the document (P-3), which is an affidavit of the Sarpanch of the village, and the medical certificate (P-10), which simply relates the events as recounted by the claimant. Furthermore, Dr. De Margerie is neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist and he does not explain what method he used in reaching the conclusion that the claimant suffers from a post-traumatic stress syndrome.
[10] In my opinion, the Refugee Division did not err in giving no weight to these documents. As Mr. Lamb, the respondent's counsel, submitted, the medical certificate (P-10) proves absolutely nothing. The facts on which Dr. De Margerie relies are the facts that were related to him by the applicant. Dr. De Margerie's opinion is valid only to the extent that these facts are proved. Consequently, the Refugee Division could, in this case, assign no weight to exhibit P-10.
[11] As to exhibit P-3, the affidavit of the Sarpanch, it is erroneous, in my opinion, to claim that this document constitutes independent evidence. Since the Refugee Division was of the opinion, having regard to the evidence, that the applicant's story was not credible, it could find that the affidavit in question was of no probative value.
[12] Fourthly, the applicant criticizes the Refugee Division for unreasonably excluding certain explanations he gave in reply to the questions asked by the Refugee Division. In my opinion, this argument is without merit. The applicant has failed to persuade me that the Refugee Division erred.
[13] Fifthly, the applicant criticizes the Refugee Division for ignoring the evidence concerning his blood relationship with Harmanjeet Singh and Harmanjeet's father, Nasib Singh. At page 3 of its reasons, the Refugee Division states:
[Translation]
Although it is clear that one Nabib [sic] Singh of the village of Jhingrau was arrested in the case of the murder of Prime Minister Beant Singh following the discovery of explosives at his residence, the panel does not believe that this individual is the claimant's uncle [or] that his son Harmanjeet (if there is a son) is sought by the police.
Furthermore, although the claimant filed a number of documents in evidence, he did not file any document establishing this blood relationship such as the birth certificates of his brother [sic] and his uncle, which would have established that they were the offspring of the same father.
[14] The applicant argues that the Sarpanch's affidavit (P-3) shows that he was a relative of Nasib Singh and his family. At paragraph 4 of his affidavit, the Sarpanch states:
4. That Police arrested many times Gurpreet Singh Shergil and tortured him. He was arrested because of close relative of Nasib Singh and his family. ...
[15] Consequently, the applicant says, the Refugee Division should have considered the information appearing in the Sarpanch's affidavit. I held earlier that the Refugee Division did not err in assigning no probative value to this affidavit. Since the Refugee Division, in more than one respect, did not believe the applicant's account, it concluded that it could not assign any weight to the Sarpanch's affidavit. Thus, the Refugee Division did not ignore exhibit P-3. It simply refused to assign it any probative value.
[16] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Marc Nadon
Judge
O T T A W A, Ontario
October 19, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: IMM-5942-00
STYLE: GURPREET SINGH SHERGILL
v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 28, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF NADON J.
DATED: OCTOBER 19, 2001
APPEARANCES:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE APPLICANT
GUY LAMB FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE APPLICANT
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA