0001
01
02 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
02
03 ____________________________________
03 Court File Number IMM-3343-97
04
04
05
05
06
06
07 BETWEEN:
07
08
08 JOGINDER SINGH NATT
09
09 Applicant
10
10
11 -and-
11
12
12 THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
13
13 Respondent
14
14
15
15
16
16
17 ____________________________________
17
18 JUDICIAL REVIEW - DECISION
18
19 January 27, 1998
19
20 Calgary, Alberta
20
21 Pages 1 to 6
21 ____________________________________
22
22
23
23
24
24
25 Taken Before:
25
26 The Honourable Mr. Justice Gibson
26
0002
01 APPEARANCES
01
02 The Honourable Mr. Justice Gibson
02
03 ____________________________________
03
04 C. R. Darwent, Esq. For the Applicant
04
05 W. J. Blain, Esq. For the Respondent
05 ____________________________________
06
06 Mr. J. Haller Court Registrar
07
07 Tammy Anderson Court Reporter
08
08
09
09
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
0003
01 THE COURT: Counsel, I am going to give you my
02 decision this morning and indicate to you my reasons.
03 The applicant seeks judicial review
04 of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination
05 Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board determining
06 him not to be a refugee, and that decision is dated
07 July 16, 1997.
08 The applicant is a male Sikh from
09 the Punjab. He is a farmer, and he is uneducated.
10 Although the CRDD does not so state, it's clear that he
11 bases his claim to convention refugee status on his
12 ethnicity or religion and on his perceived political
13 opinion.
14 That basis for a refugee claim by a
15 Sikh from the Punjab is a matter that all too often comes
16 before this Court and, clearly, more often comes before
17 the Convention Refugee Determination Division itself.
18 The facts of this matter are not unsimilar to the facts
19 in many of those claims.
20 The applicant testified that he was
21 forced to provide food and shelter to Sikh militants.
22 Apparently, the military or police in the Punjab became
23 aware of this fact. The applicant was taken into
24 custody. He was interrogated and badly beaten or
25 tortured. He was released only upon payment of a
26 substantial bribe. Following his release, he required
0004
01 extensive medical attention.
02 Some two to three months later,
03 that is following his release, he was again sought out by
04 the police in the Punjab, but through good luck or good
05 management, he evaded detention a second time.
06 On the basis of the fact that he
07 was continuing to be sought out, he fled into hiding in
08 Uttar Pradesh, a neighbouring state to Punjab. There he
09 determined that he was still being sought out or inquired
10 after, not only in his home village but in Uttar Pradesh
11 as well. So again the applicant fled; this time to
12 Delhi, and from Delhi to Canada.
13 The Convention Refugee
14 Determination Division determined that the applicant had
15 a well-founded fear of persecution in Punjab but
16 rejected, as not credible, his testimony that he would
17 not have an internal flight alternative anywhere else in
18 India because he testified he was still being sought out
19 and he was on a police list that would be available to
20 police throughout India.
21 In assessing the applicant's
22 testimony, the Convention Refugee Determination Division
23 acknowledged that the applicant had "no formal
24 education," that his testimony was given through an
25 interpreter, and it was also acknowledged that there was
26 before the Convention Refugee Determination Division a
0005
01 medical opinion concerning the applicant and the
02 difficulties that he would have in testifying.
03 The Convention Refugee
04 Determination Division determined to give little weight
05 to the medical opinion, commenting that it was not by a
06 psychologist but, rather, by a family physician. The
07 Convention Refugee Determination Division found the
08 applicant's responses in respect of his rejection of an
09 internal flight alternative to be inconsistent, both
10 internally and with his personal information form, and
11 commented adversely on his demeanor in giving evidence.
12 It also found certain of his testimony
13 to be implausible and inconsistent with documentary
14 evidence before it, which it chose to prefer in light of
15 its concerns regarding demeanor, inconsistency, and
16 implausibility.
17 Against the test for review of
18 credibility findings set out in Soto Giron and Aguebor,
19 two cases cited before me, I regret that I can only
20 conclude that the Convention Refugee Determination
21 Division's findings and, thus, its conclusion that the
22 applicant has an internal flight alternative in India
23 outside the Punjab was reasonably open to it.
24 To put it another way, I find that
25 the Convention Refugee Determination Division made no
26 reviewable error in concluding against the applicant's
0006
01 claimed convention refugee status.
02 That is not to say that I would
03 necessarily have reached the same conclusion as the CRDD
04 did, but that, of course, is not the test. In the
05 result, this application for judicial review will be
06 dismissed. No question will be certified.
07 As counsel are aware, I am required
08 by the Federal Court Act, when I provide oral reasons
09 such as that, to obtain a transcript of those reasons and
10 to deposit them in the Registry. I will follow that
11 procedure as soon as the transcript can be made
12 available.
13 Any questions, Counsel?
14 MR. DARWENT: No, sir. Thank you.
15 MR. BLAIN: No, My Lord. Thank you.
16 THE COURT: Thank you.
17 COURT REGISTRAR: This special sitting of the Federal
18 Court at Calgary is now concluded.
19 (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 10:55 A.M.)
20
21 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22
23
24
25
26