YUVRAJ SINGH Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2022 FC 164

Date: 20220209 Docket: IMM-1026-21 Citation: 2022 FC 164 Ottawa, Ontario, February 9, 2022 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Roussel BETWEEN:YUVRAJ SINGHApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The Applicant, Yuvraj Singh, is a citizen of India.

He seeks judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD]dated January 20, 2021, whereby it confirmed the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], dismissing his claim for protectionon the basis that he had a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] elsewhere in India. [2] The Applicant is a religious musician. He sought refugee protection based on his alleged fear of a drug trafficker who tried toforcefully recruit him to sell drugs in August 2018.

This drug trafficker is allegedly well-connected to a member of the PunjabLegislative Assembly and the Punjab Police. [3] The RPD found that, as the Applicant’s fear concerned criminality, his claim under

section 96 of the Immigration and RefugeeProtection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], failed due to the lack of a nexus to a Convention ground. The RPD then assessed the claim undersection 97 of the IRPA. It concluded that the Applicant had a viable IFA elsewhere in India after finding, inter alia, that he was notcredible about his allegations of being located and arrested by the Punjab Police in a state outside its jurisdiction. [4] The Applicant appealed the decision to the RAD. In support of his appeal, he filed new evidence in the form of fifteen (15)documents.

The RAD found that none of the documents submitted were admissible as new evidence, and accordingly denied theApplicant’s request for a hearing. The RAD also concluded that the Applicant had a viable IFA elsewhere in India. [5] The RAD’s decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov,2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 16-17 [Vavilov]). When determining whether a decision is reasonable, the Court’s focus is on "“the decisionactually made by the decision maker, including both the decision maker’s reasoning process and the outcome”" (Vavilov at para 83).

Itmust ask itself "“whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — andwhether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”" (Vavilov at para 99).

The"“burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable”" (Vavilov at para 100). [6] Upon considering the record and the submissions of the parties, the Applicant has failed to persuade me that the RAD’s decision isunreasonable. [7] Contrary to the Applicant’s submissions before this Court, only his affidavit, the letter from his father and the lawyer’s letter postdatethe RPD’s decision. The RAD reasonably found and explained why the Applicant’s documents were inadmissible.

They were an attemptto elaborate on the Applicant’s testimony before the RPD, or they contained evidence that had arisen prior to the rejection of the claim.The Applicant had also failed to explain why he did not provide them before the RPD hearing. [8] An appeal to the RAD is not an opportunity for an applicant to complete a deficient record, or to answer the weaknesses identified bythe RPD (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Singh, 2016 FCA 96 at para 54; Digaf v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019FC 1255 at para 25; Eshetie v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1036 at para 33).

Moreover, a document’s newness is notdetermined solely by the date on which it was authored. The focus is rather on the date of the event or circumstance that the documentseeks to prove (Raza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 at para 16). Despite his onus to do so, the Applicant didnot demonstrate how the proposed new evidence met the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. [9] Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the RAD’s findings of a viable IFA, the RAD did in fact consider the specificcircumstances of the Applicant and his alleged fears.

As was the case before the RAD, the Applicant’s submissions before this Courtfocused on the potential means of the agents of harm to locate him in the IFA through methods, such as tenant registration, cellulartowers, and police background and identity checks. The RAD reasonably found that while such methods speak to the possible meansavailable to search for the Applicant, they did not establish that the agents of harm were motivated to search for him and pursue himoutside of his village. The RAD found that the motivation of the Applicant’s agents of harm was to recruit local young men in his villageto sell drugs.

The Applicant had not demonstrated that the agents of harm had the motivation to search and pursue him in the IFA, or thatthe member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly had any direct interest in him.

The RAD also explained why it did not find credible theApplicant’s allegation that the Punjab police had located and arrested him in another state, before bringing him back to torture him. [10] Once the issue of an IFA was raised, the onus was on the Applicant to provide credible evidence demonstrating, on a balance ofprobabilities, that there was a serious possibility of persecution or risk of danger or harm throughout his country and that it would beunreasonable for him, in all the circumstances, to seek refuge there (Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1992] 1 FC 706 at 709–711 (FCA); Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and

Immigration), (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589 (FCA); Feboke v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 155 atparas 43-45). The RAD reasonably concluded that the Applicant had not met his burden of proof. The Applicant has not identified anymaterial evidence that the RAD failed to consider that would substantiate his allegations. While the Applicant may not agree with theRAD’s findings, it is not this Court’s role to reassess and reweigh the evidence to reach a conclusion that is favourable to the Applicant(Vavilov at para 125; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 59). [11] Finally, the Applicant’s arguments relating to

Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment, as well as Canada’s obligation to comply with international law instruments and the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms,

Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, have alreadybeen addressed and rejected several times (Sandhu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FCA),[2000] FCJ no 902 at para 2 (FCA); Ogiemwonyi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 346 at para 39; Singh v Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 341 at paras 17-18; Fares v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 797 at paras 40-44; Sidhu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 39 at para 16). [12] To conclude, I am satisfied that, when read holistically and contextually, the RAD’s decision meets the reasonableness standard setout in Vavilov.

The decision is based on internally coherent reasons, and it is justified in light of the relevant facts and the law. Thereasons are also transparent and intelligible. [13] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. No questions of general importance were proposed for certificationand I agree that none arise. JUDGMENT in IMM-1026-21 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1. The application for judicial review is dismissed; and 2. No question of general importance is certified. “Sylvie E.

Roussel” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1026-21STYLE OF CAUSE: YUVRAJ SINGH v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONPLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCEDATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 7, 2022JUDGMENT AND REASONS: ROUSSEL J.DATED: FEBRUARY 9, 2022 APPEARANCES: Stewart Istvanffy For The ApplicantEvan Liosis For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Stewart Istvanffy Montréal, Quebec For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec For The Respondent