Date : 20010613
Dossier : IMM-3560-00
Référence neutre: 2001 CFPI 653
Entre :
JAGJIT SINGH SANDHU
Partie demanderesse
- et -
LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION
Partie défenderesse
[1] Le demandeur cherche à faire annuler une décision de la Section du statut de réfugié, en date du 14 juin 2000, selon laquelle il n'est pas un réfugié.
[2] Le demandeur, né le 2 novembre 1971, est un citoyen de l'Inde. Il revendique le statut de réfugié au Canada en raison de son appartenance à un groupe social et du fait qu'on lui imputerait des opinions politiques. Il est arrivé au Canada le 2 novembre 1999 et il a réclamé le statut de réfugié le lendemain.
[3] La Section du statut a rejeté sa revendication au motif que son histoire n'était pas crédible. Selon le demandeur, la Section du statut a commis de nombreuses erreurs qui justifient l'accueil de sa demande de contrôle judiciaire. Je suis d'accord.
[4] En premier lieu, il ne peut faire de doute que la Section du statut a commis une erreur relativement à la date à laquelle le cousin du demandeur, Ginder, a quitté le village. À la page 2 de ses motifs, la Section du statut s'exprime comme suit:
The claimant alleged that they were arrested because Iqbal Singh was their distant relative. As to why his uncle Chanki and his cousin Ginder who as well were Iqbal Singh's distant relatives were not bothered by the police, he replied that uncle Chanki sent his son Ginder out of the village on September 3, 1995. He added that Ginder visited him, his father and brother after their release from the police station. After more questions, he said that Ginder left on September 11, 1995. He was asked why did he say previously that Ginder left on September 3. He first denied having said that. He repeatedly stated that his cousin left after that date before conceding that he made a mistake. He was asked again why was he arrested along with his brother and father when Chanki and Ginder were not. He offered no comment. The panel does not believe that the claimant is credible.
[5] Je suis satisfait, à la lecture de la transcription, que le demandeur ne s'est pas contredit concernant la date de départ de son cousin Ginder. Voici ce que révèle la transcription[1]:
Q. When did he send him?
A. When they arrested us.
Q. When, sir?
A. 95.
Q. When in 95?
A. Third in the ninth month 95. After that, and release, after we were released, he went away.
Q. After you were released he went away?
A. When they learned that I was arrest, Jagjit, and Jagjit meaning me I was arrested, me and my ... three of us were taken to the police and when we were released, daddy said he has only one son and he sent him out somewhere.
Q. How many days after your release did he send him?
A. I came back on the 5th.
Q. So when did Jinder [sic] leave Nangal?
A. I was sick, he came to inquire about our health. After that, his father made him run away from there.
Q. How many time after that?
A. He had, he sent him to his maternal uncle, and his maternal uncle sent him outside the country.
Q. Sir, I'm asking you how many days after you were released that Jinder [sic] left Nangal?
A. He left on the 11th, 11-09-95, ninth month.
Q. Sir, you previously told me that he left on the 3rd of September. You previously said that he left on the 3rd of September.
A. We were arrested on the 3rd.
- Yes.
A. They caught us on the 3rd.
Q. I know that they arrested you on the 3rd, but you told me before that ... sir, sir, could you let me finish please, and please again do not speak in same time when the interpreter. Sir, let me ask you the question. If you do not agree with what I say, you'll have all the opportunity to say it. You told me that your uncle sent Jinder [sic] on the 3rd of September. Then you told me that he went after you were released. You said he came to visit you when you were treated. And then you told me that he left on September 11th. Do you agree that you told me that, sir?
A. (Inaudible) what I've said, but I don't agree with the 3rd that he left. Jinder [sic] left on the 3rd of September.
BY PRESIDING MEMBER(to interpreter)
- Could you repeat, Mr. Sikka.
A. I don't agree with you that he left on the 3rd of September. But what I have said is correct.
BY PRESIDING MEMBER(to person concerned)
Q. Sir, did you say he left on the 3rd of September?
A. Police caught me on the 3rd of September from my house.
Q. Sir, I know that. Could you answer my question please. Do you deny that you said that Jinder [sic] was sent by his father ..
A. Yes.
Q. ... on the 3rd of September?
A. No, not on the 3rd of September. I am released on the ... I was arrested the 3rd, released on the 5th. He come to inquire about me and he left his house on the 11th.
[6] Lorsque la Section du statut affirme que le demandeur a témoigné que son cousin Ginder avait quitté le village le 3 septembre 1995, elle fait erreur. La date du 3 septembre 1995 a bel et bien été mentionnée par le demandeur dans son témoignage, mais cette date était donnée en réponse à une question concernant la date de son arrestation. La Section du statut fait aussi erreur lorsqu'elle affirme que le demandeur a reconnu qu'il s'était trompé lorsqu'il avait donné le 3 septembre 1995 comme étant la date de départ de son cousin Ginder. Le demandeur n'a fait aucune concession en ce sens.
[7] La Section du statut a commis une deuxième erreur. Celle-ci se retrouve à la page 3 de sa décision, où la Section du statut énonce ce qui suit:
The claimant alleged that on June 27, 1999, the police arrested him and his father on the accusation of giving food and shelter to militants as revealed to them by a militant who was supposedly a companion of the claimant's brother. The claimant was advised that it is hard to believe that he was arrested for assisting militants in 1999. He was confronted with documentary evidence, which indicates:
"(...) A Political Science professor at the University of Missouri, who specializes on the Sikhs in Punjab, and who returned in mid-June 1998 from a one month trip to Punjab and Haryana (said):
"I have not heard of Sikh militants in 1997 and 1998 forcing local Sikhs in Punjab to provide them with food, shelter, money and transportation. In the past, at the height of the Sikh militant movement, Sikh militants did force the local population in Punjab to provide them with assistance of all sorts, but this is no longer the case as the militant Sikh movement is no longer active.'".
This opinion is also shared by the Executive Director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre who stated:
"There is little or no credible reports of Sikh families being coerced to give shelter or food to militants since the beginning of 1997. This in the main because the hard core militants have either been physically wiped out or the residual remnants are not in India or are in deep hibernation. There is little support for hard core militancy in Punjab today, hence it is difficult for the remnant militants to enforce their writ by fear or intimidation. The social conditions for coercive enforcement by the militant groups does not exist. There could however, be the isolated case.
The claimant replied that he was telling what happened to him. The panel does not believe that the claimant met his burden of providing a credible testimony in this regard.
[8] Tel qu'il appert de l'extrait cité ci-haut, la Section du statut a avisé le demandeur, durant le cours de l'audition, qu'il était difficile de croire qu'il avait été arrêté pour avoir aidé les militants sikhs en 1999. À l'appui de cette affirmation, la Section du statut a référé à deux textes, selon lesquels les militants sikhs avaient cessé de "forcer" la population à les nourrir et à les héberger en 1997 et 1998, cela étant le résultat du fait que le mouvement militant sikh n'était plus actif.
[9] Comme le signale Me Le Brun, le procureur du demandeur, le demandeur ne prétend nullement que lui et sa famille ont été forcés de collaborer avec les militants. Au contraire, il semble que le demandeur et sa famille aient collaboré de plein gré avec les militants qui sont venus chez eux par l'entremise de son frère. Par conséquent, les deux textes cités par la Section du statut ne sont, à mon avis, nullement pertinents. En d'autres mots, à moins que ces textes aient pour but de démontrer que personne ne collaborait de plein gré avec les militants – et à mon avis, tel n'est pas le cas – ils n'appuient nullement l'affirmation de la Section du statut selon laquelle « it is hard to believe that he was arrested for assisting militants in 1999 » .
[10] Vu que la décision attaquée est fondée sur le manque de crédibilité du demandeur, ces deux erreurs suffisent, à mon avis, pour justifier une intervention de ma part. Par conséquent, la décision de la Section du statut sera annulée et le dossier lui sera retourné pour une audience devant un panel différent.
Marc Nadon
Juge
O T T A W A (Ontario)
le 13 juin 2001