2
Date: 19990730
Docket: IMM-3999-98
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 30th DAY OF JULY 1999
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LUTFY
BETWEEN:
AMRITPAL SINGH DULAI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
UPON this application for judicial review of the decision of the visa officer dated July 16, 1998, in which the applicant"s application for permanent residence was refused;
UPON the hearing in Montréal (Quebec) on July 21, 1999;
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Allan Lutfy"
J.F.C.C.
Date: 19990730
Docket: IMM-3999-98
BETWEEN:
AMRITPAL SINGH DULAI
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUTFY J.:
[1] Amritpal Singh Dulai is a Sikh who lived in Punjab prior to leaving India to seek Convention refugee status.
[2] Mr. Dulai left India in October 1993 when he was 20. He had been a member of the
All India Sikh Student Federation but, in his own words, he "... supported the creation of a
separate state for Sikhs because I sympathize with their plight but I have never supported any
violent acts to achieve this".
| _. The applicant met, through mutual acquaintances, a student leader whom the police executed in late 1992. This victim and his associates had visited the applicant's family residence on occasion. |
| _. Shortly after this incident, the applicant was arrested, detained and severely beaten |
over three days by the police. He was interrogated concerning the militant activities of the
executed student leader and his associates. The applicant's responses that he knew nothing of their activities were not believed by the police.
| _. In May 1993, the applicant was arrested a second time. He was again interrogated |
and beaten during six days. He repeated that he did not know the location of the militants
being sought by the police.
| _. The tribunal accepted the veracity of the applicant's information. However, in reasons which are clear and comprehensive, the tribunal determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee because he has an internal flight alternative in Bombay. In reaching this conclusion, the tribunal relied on the documentary evidence and on its own analysis of the applicant's personal circumstances. |
| _. The applicant's principal argument is that the tribunal ignored relevant documentary |
evidence concerning the internal flight alternative. In May 1997, a well-known specialist of
Sikh militancy in Punjab provided responses to the U.S. Resource Information Centre. The tribunal quoted at some length from the applicant"s opinion that persons currently at risk have been narrowed to militants and close affiliates of militants. The applicant criticizes the tribunal for not having referred to the following passage from her responses:
| It is well known that the Indian police (not only in Punjab but elsewhere too) keep lists of habitual offenders. These "history sheeters" are then brought in for questioning whenever there is a crime committed in a given region. Asylum seekers who claim to fear being picked up because they were on a list stemming from the early 90' may be telling the truth, and they may be at continuing risk. I would point out that this "list" factor does mitigate somewhat my general comment that the rank and file, uninvolved Sikhs are today only minimally at risk. If someone can show and he or she was on a list from the early 90's, when abuses ran rampant, he or she may indeed have reason to fear. To ascertain this, I would ask whether they had been picked up on previous occasions, i.e. during the early 90's. Get the details. |
| _. In Gill v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,1 Justice Rothstein intervened because the panel in that case, in relying on the same passage, had omitted to include the last two sentences which advised decision-makers to canvas whether refugee claimants may have been placed on lists of habitual offenders in the early 1990's. |
| _. The applicant urges that the decision in Gill should be applied in this case. I do not agree, principally because the facts here are substantially different. |
| _. There is no evidence that Mr. Dulai was perceived to be a militant or an habitual offender. No charges were ever laid against him. He cannot be certain that his fingerprints were taken. No conditions were attached to his release. After his second detention in May 1993 and until his departure from India in October 1993, the applicant was able to pursue his studies at the same college.2 Mr. Dulai does not claim to be a militant or a close associate of one. |
| _. Of equal significance, this tribunal never relied upon any part of the passage referred to in Gill. I accept the thorough analysis, by the respondent's counsel, concerning the tribunal's proper interpretation of the documentary evidence it relied upon in identifying the internal flight alternative. The applicant argues that certain documentary evidence was ignored by the tribunal and that it is difficult to establish that one"s name is not on a police list. Neither point alters my view that no reviewable error is disclosed in the tribunal"s decision. |
| _. The applicant's counsel did not raise subsection 2(3) of the Immigration Act during the tribunal hearing nor was the issue pursued in the oral submissions in this application for judicial review. |
| _. This application for judicial review will be dismissed. Counsel agreed that it may be of assistance to the applicant if these reasons were written in the language of the tribunal decision. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question. |
"Allan Lutfy"
Ottawa, Ontario J.F.C.C.
July 30, 1999
__________________