Date: 20031219
Docket: IMM-1597-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1488
Between:
AJIT SINGH SANGHA,
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated January 22, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] The applicant, Ajit Singh Sangha, is a Jat Sikh from Simbli, State of Punjab, India. He is married and has two adult children who are currently in India.
[3] The Board found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee nor a "person in need of protection" because his story was not plausible and his subjective fear of persecution was not credible.
[4] The applicant submits that the Board's credibility findings are inconsistent with its finding that there were no internal contradictions in his testimony and between his testimony and his Personal Information Form ("PIF"). When the Board evaluates a particular claim, it must consider the totality of the evidence. As the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 at 244, a tribunal's perception that a claimant is not credible with respect to a material element of his or her claim for refugee status may amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence for that claim. In this case, the Board found that a material element of the applicant's claim, his fear of persecution, was not credible. As a result, even though it found his testimony internally consistent and consistent with the information in his PIF, the Board could conclude that the applicant's overall claim was not credible.
[5] The applicant submits that the Board minimized the repercussions of the applicant's friendship with one of the suspected militants. The Board found that the applicant's relationship to the suspected Sikh militant, which forms the basis of this persecution by the police, was too distant to justify police interest and therefore, this fear was not plausible. The Board is entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibilities, common sense and rationality (see Monteiro v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2002 FCT 1258, Shahamati v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (March 24, 1994), A-388-92 (F.C.A.) and Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). Furthermore, the Board concluded that the applicant's behaviour is not reflective of someone with a subjective fear of persecution. As a result, the Board found that the applicant's fear of persecution was not credible, which, I find, is a conclusion supported by the evidence.
[6] For the reasons outlined above, I am of the opinion that the Board committed no patently unreasonable error in its disposition of this case.
[7] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 19, 2003
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1597-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: AJIT SINGH SANGHA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 26, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: December 19, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Jeffrey Platt FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Caroline Cloutier FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jeffrey Platt FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario