Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2002-05-29 Neutral citation 2002 FCT 616 File numbers IMM-3384-01 Decision Content Date: 20020529 Docket: IMM-3384-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 616 BETWEEN: SWARAN KAUR PARAMJIT KAUR partie demanderesse et LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION partie défenderesse REASONS FOR ORDER LEMIEUX J. [1] I am of the view this judicial review application by the applicants Swaran Kaur and her daughter Paramjit Kaur, both citizens of India, challenging a May 31, 2002 finding by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the tribunal) they were not convention refugees must be dismissed. [2] Their claims are based on their being members of a particular social group - the family - and the heart of their claims centers on Swaran Kaur's husband, a senior Congress party worker, who went into hiding fearing the police who came after him after he had lodged a complaint against the officer in charge (OIC) of the local police station and a cousin of the successful candidate who along with others sought revenge against him because of his election activities. [3] After he lodged the complaint with higher police authorities of the district, there was a promise to investigate. Subsequently, the OIC came to the family and threatened the husband who was away in Delhi. He went into hiding. The OIC came back looking for the husband but he was not there. Mrs. Kaur was mistre…
Read full judgment
Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2002-05-29 Neutral citation 2002 FCT 616 File numbers IMM-3384-01 Decision Content Date: 20020529 Docket: IMM-3384-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 616 BETWEEN: SWARAN KAUR PARAMJIT KAUR partie demanderesse et LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION partie défenderesse REASONS FOR ORDER LEMIEUX J. [1] I am of the view this judicial review application by the applicants Swaran Kaur and her daughter Paramjit Kaur, both citizens of India, challenging a May 31, 2002 finding by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the tribunal) they were not convention refugees must be dismissed. [2] Their claims are based on their being members of a particular social group - the family - and the heart of their claims centers on Swaran Kaur's husband, a senior Congress party worker, who went into hiding fearing the police who came after him after he had lodged a complaint against the officer in charge (OIC) of the local police station and a cousin of the successful candidate who along with others sought revenge against him because of his election activities. [3] After he lodged the complaint with higher police authorities of the district, there was a promise to investigate. Subsequently, the OIC came to the family and threatened the husband who was away in Delhi. He went into hiding. The OIC came back looking for the husband but he was not there. Mrs. Kaur was mistreated and her daughter raped. The house was set afire and Paramjit badly burned. [4] The tribunal did not believe their story; it found that it had been subjected to a totally fabricated story. [5] What led the tribunal to this critical finding was medical evidence (the Daigle Report) of Paramjit Kaur's burns introduced at the hearing of her brother's claim which was being studied by another panel. [6] The Daigle report concluded Paramjit's scars were old ones not attributable to a recent fire. The applicants were given ample opportunity by the tribunal to rebut this medical report. They provided three medical reports but the tribunal found none of them attacked the central findings of the Daigle Report. [7] Counsel for the applicants attacked the basis of the Daigle report on a number of grounds but at the end of the day had to concede, correctly in my view, that none of the evidence provided by the applicants successfully impeached the Daigle report. [8] As a result, the critical finding upon which the tribunal rejected the applicants' story - persecution by the police because of the husband's complaint - stands. [9] Counsel for the applicant argued other errors made by the tribunal: (1) a requirement to corroborate their oral testimony (2) a misapprehension by the tribunal of the true nature of the husband's fear (persecution because he was a member of the Congress party which seems to be the view the tribunal took versus his fear of persecution because he made a complaint against the police) and (3) inappropriate findings on state protection. [10] I find the substance of these alleged errors dependent on police persecution which the tribunal did not believe occurred here, a finding which cannot be disturbed. [11] For these reasons, this judicial review application is dismissed. No certified question was raised. "François Lemieux" Judge Montreal, Quebec May 29, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION Date: 20020529 Docket: IMM-3384-01 BETWEEN: SWARAN KAUR PARAMJIT KAUR partie demanderesse et LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION partie défenderesse REASONS FOR ORDER FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3384-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: SWARAN KAUR PARAMJIT KAUR partie demanderesse et LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION partie défenderesse PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: May 28, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX DATED: May 29, 2002 APPEARANCES: Me Styliani Markaki FOR APPLICANT Me Mario Blanchard FOR RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Me Styliani Markaki Montreal, Quebec FOR APPLICANT Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montreal, Quebec FOR RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca