KAWARJIT SINGH Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2021 FC 940

Date: 20210913 Docket: IMM-4614-20 Citation: 2021 FC 940 St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, September 13, 2021 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:KAWARJIT SINGHApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Kawarjit Singh (the "“Applicant”") seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee AppealDivision (the "“RAD”"). In that decision made on September 10, 2020, the RAD confirmed the decision of the Immigration and RefugeeBoard, Refugee Protection Division (the "“RPD”"), that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection,within the scope of

section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 (the"“Act”"). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of India. For some years, he held status in Belgium as a permanent resident. The RAD determined that hehad lost that status by operation of law. It assessed the Applicant’s claim for protection against his country on nationality, that is India. [3] The RAD determined that the Applicant’s alleged risk of persecution in India had no nexus to the grounds of Convention refugeestatus, as set out in

section 96 of the Act. The Applicant claims to be at risk of harassment and threats of bribery from the police. [4] The RAD proceeded to asses the Applicant’s alleged risk pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the Act. [5] The RAD found that the Applicant failed to establish risk, that it would not be unreasonable for the Applicant and his family to meetthe police demands for money realized from the family business, and that such settlement would not deprive the Applicant of his"“fundamental human rights”". [6] The Applicant argues that the RAD failed to consider his claim pursuant to

section 96 of the Act and unreasonably assessed his claimpursuant to subsection 97(1). [7] The Applicant characterized the RAD’s failure to consider his claim pursuant to

section 96 of the Act amounts to a breach ofprocedural fairness. [8] Issues of procedural fairness are subject to review upon the standard of correctness; see the decision in Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa (2009), 2009 SCC 12 , 304 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.). [9] The merits of the decision are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration) v. Vavilov (2019), 2019 SCC 65 , 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.). [10] According to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.

Vavilov(2019), 2019 SCC 65 , 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.), the standard of reasonableness presumptively applies to administrativedecisions, including decisions made under the Act, except where legislative intent or the rule of law suggests otherwise; see Vavilov,supra at paragraph 23. [11] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review "“bears the hallmarks of reasonableness –justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bearon that decision”"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [12] The Applicant has failed to show any breach of procedural fairness.

Contrary to his arguments, the RAD did consider his claimrelative to

section 96 of the Act and found no nexus to a Convention refuge ground. [13] In my opinion, having regard to the evidence, that conclusion was reasonable. [14] Essentially, the Applicant argues that extortion attempts from police are the root of his claim for protection. Extortion and bribery,per se, are not recognized as Convention refugee grounds. The RAD determined that the Applicant failed to show a ground forprotection.

I see no reviewable error in the RAD’s finding. [15] The RAD also considered the Applicant’s claim for protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the Act and concluded that he had notshown a basis for protection. [16] Again, this finding is reasonable, considering the evidence and relevant jurisprudence.

[17] I refer to the decision in Sanchez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 99 , 62 Imm. L.R. (3d) 5where the Federal Court of Appeal found that interference with business interests "“would not affect a fundamental principle of humanrights”"; see paragraph 19. [18] In the result, the decision of the RAD meets the applicable standards of review. There is no reviewable error and no basis forjudicial intervention, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. [19] There is no question for certification arising.

JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed, there is no question for certification arising. "E. Heneghan" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-4614-20 STYLE OF CAUSE: KAWARJIT SINGH v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERNCEDATE OF HEARING: JUNE 3, 2021JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J.DATED: SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 APPEARANCES: Mark J.

Gruszczynski FOR THE APPLICANTEvan Liosis FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Canada Immigration Team Barrister and Solicitor Westmont, Québec FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Montreal, Québec FOR THE RESPONDENT