Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2004-10-18
Neutral citation
2004 FC 1432
File numbers
IMM-412-04
Decision Content
Date: 20041018
Docket: IMM-412-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1432
Ottawa, Ontario, October 18, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
AMARJIT SINGH
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (panel) dated December 3, 2003, under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (Act). In that decision, the panel found that the applicant did not qualify as a "Convention refugee" under section 96 or as a "person in need of protection" under section 97.
ISSUE
[2] Was it patently unreasonable for the panel to find that the applicant was not credible?
[3] For the following reasons, I answer this question in the negative and the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[4] The applicant is a citizen of India. He alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his perceived political opinion. He claims that there would be a risk to his life and a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he were to return to his country.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[5] In a very short decision, the panel determined that the applicant was not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" because of his lack of credibility. Its decision was based on omissions and allegations that it found to be implausible.
[6] First, the theft of the applicant's tractor by militants to escape the police was not accepted as plausible.
[7] The second factor was related to the applicant leaving his country with a passport bearing his photograph, his signature and his name even though the police were looking for him to arrest him and kill him.
[8] The final factor targeted the contradiction between the Personal Information Form (PIF) and the applicant's declaration when he arrived in Canada regarding his arrest in India.
ANALYSIS
[9] In Shahamati v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 415 (C.A.)(QL), Pratte J.A. states that ". . . the Board is entitled, in assessing credibility, to rely on criteria such as rationality and common sense."
[10] In matters of credibility, this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the panel. If the applicant was not able to establish that the decision of the specialized tribunal was based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, there is no reason to intervene (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7).
[11] The applicant's submissions only involve factual considerations. After reviewing the evidence filed by the parties, reading the cited transcript, and considering the parties' memoranda, it is my opinion that the panel did not make a patently unreasonable error.
[12] The parties declined to submit serious questions of general importance. No question will be certified.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-412-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: AMARJIT SINGH
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING October 13, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. BEAUDRY
DATE OF REASONS: October 18, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANT
Sherry Rafai Far FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec