Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2005-06-17
Neutral citation
2005 FC 845
File numbers
IMM-9159-04
Decision Content
Date: 20050617
Docket: IMM-9159-04
Citation: 2005 FC 845
BETWEEN:
ARWINDER SINGH
Applicant
-and-
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB) dated October 4, 2004, that the applicant is not a "Convention refugee", or a "person in need of protection" as defined under sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Arwinder Singh (the applicant) is citizen of India. He alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on his being a Sikh in Pendjab and also based on his membership in a social group: that of the family.
[3] The IRB did not believe the applicant's story. After reviewing the evidence, I cannot identify anything that is clearly irrational in the assessment of that evidence. The applicant himself explained that his grandfather had obtained certain documents to help him flee the country and that those documents were forged. The applicant also obtained 22 affidavits from neighbours and friends - again, with the help of his grandfather. Even if the applicant does not admit that those affidavits are false, the panel was entitled to not assign them any weight, as the grandfather had already used forged documents to help him.
[4] The IRB also found it implausible that the applicant had lived in hiding since 1990, that he had been taken in 1997 and that he had stayed in the country even after he had been shot at in 1998. The applicant then waited two years before fleeing the country. Further, he waited for more than a year before claiming refugee status once he had arrived in Canada. Even if the panel had accepted the applicant's story to the effect that the arrangements enabling him to leave India had taken two years and that he only learned four months after his arrival in Canada that he could claim refugee protection, waiting eight months before applying for protection is inconsistent with a subjective fear of persecution. Moreover, while he was in hiding, the applicant never filed a complaint with the police. If he truly feared being killed, he would certainly have done everything possible to prevent the threats to his life.
[5] In the circumstances, as a palpable and overriding error has not been established, this Court cannot substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the administrative tribunal. I have not been persuaded that the inferences drawn by this specialized panel could not reasonably have been drawn (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
Ottawa, Ontario
June 17, 2005
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-9159-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: ARWINDER SINGH v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING May 16, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: June 17, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Michel Lebrun FOR THE APPLICANT
Martine Valois FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Lebrun FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada