KAMALJIT SINGH Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2021 FC 862

Date: 20210824 Docket: IMM-4601-20 Citation: 2021 FC 862 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, August 24, 2021 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Shore BETWEEN:KAMALJIT SINGHApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision rendered on September 9, 2020, by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) inwhich the RAD confirmed the rejection of the applicant’s claim for refugee protection on the grounds that an internal flight alternative(IFA) was available. [2] The applicant is a citizen of India and is seeking refugee protection on the basis of fear and threats of honour killing by hisgirlfriend’s father and cousin, with the complicity of Punjabi authorities.

The applicant arrived in Canada in December 2016. [3] The Refugee Protection Division rejected the claim for refugee protection on the grounds that the applicant could reasonably andsafely relocate to Mumbai or New Delhi. The RAD confirmed that decision. [4] IFA is the notion that a person can be a refugee in one part of a country and not in another.

The onus of proof rests on the refugeeprotection claimant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in thearea covered by the IFA or that, in the circumstances, it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek refuge there(Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589 at 593, 597 (CA)).This second prong of the analysis requires "“nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of aclaimant”" (Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164 at para 15). [5] This judicial review focuses on the reasonableness of the RAD’s conclusions with respect to the first prong of the IFA analysis.

A"“reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to thefacts and law that constrain the decision maker”" (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para85). [6] The applicant submits that there is a possibility that he would be persecuted in the IFA given the interest of the alleged agents ofpersecution in finding him and their ability to do so when he relocates.

In particular, the applicant alleges that the RAD unreasonablyconcluded that it was unlikely that these officers would be able to locate the applicant when the local police process his registration inthe tenant verification system in New Delhi.

The applicant also submits that the RAD erred in failing to analyze this possibility inMumbai. [7] In this case, the RAD concluded that the applicant had failed to establish the likelihood of being at risk in the IFA based on, amongother things, the applicant’s testimony that there had since been no recorded charges against him, that his girlfriend had told the policethat their relationship was consensual, and that, on the basis of the documentary evidence on tenant screening, it was unlikely that thepolice in the IFA would conduct screening to that degree, or to any degree, on the applicant’s information provided by a prospectivelandlord. [8] The Court finds that the RAD reasonably probed the applicant’s situation and that it was shown that an IFA would have beenavailable to the applicant. [9] The applicant does not dispute the RAD’s analysis of his allegations, which concludes that he would not be at risk of becoming avictim of an honour crime committed by the alleged agents of persecution. [10] In addition, it was open to the RAD to conclude, particularly given the absence of official charges, the statement that therelationship was consensual, and the objective evidence, that the applicant would not be at risk of being located through the tenantscreening system and thus face persecution in the IFA. (see Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 350 at para 34;Singh Sidhu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 191 at para 26; Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC510 at para 30).

Moreover, it is apparent from the decision that this analysis referred to both IFAs. [11] Lastly, the RAD is presumed to have reviewed the entire record (Basanti v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1068 atpara 24). [12] For these reasons, the Court dismisses the application for judicial review.

JUDGMENT in IMM-4601-20 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review be dismissed with no question of general importance to be certified. “Michel M. J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation Michael Palles, Reviser FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: imm-4601-20 STYLE OF CAUSE: KAMALJIT SINGH v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HEARD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 23, 2021 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE J.

DATED: AUGUST 24, 2021 APPEARANCES : Claude Whalen FOR THE APPLICANT Margarita Tzavelakos FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Claude Whalen Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT