MB8-01755

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB8-01755 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered at Montreal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision July 2, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Me Julie Corry Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Baldev S. Sandhu Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW OF THE APPEAL [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of India appealing the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision that he is neither a "Convention refugee" nor a "person in need of protection". [2] I deny the appeal and confirm the RPD's decision for different reasons.1 [3] In my opinion, the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the Appellant. [4] I find that the Appellant established, with sufficient credibility, that the individuals who were threatening him could be a danger to him in the district of Ludhiana, Punjab should he return there, based on the circumstances of his father's murder and past occupation as a XXXX XXXX, his mother's current employment as a XXXX XXXX and that the police in his home town were previously unwilling to help him. [5] Despite this finding, I am denying this appeal because, in my opinion, the determinative issue in this file is the availability of an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA), and I find that the Appellant has not established that the individuals who were threatening him have the motivation or capacity to pursue him across state lines to other parts of India nor that the tenant verification system puts him at risk should he return to India and establish himself in Mumbai, Bangalore or Delhi. [6] Moreover, the Appellant did not establish that it would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh for him to relocate to either of these places. Background2 [7] The Appellant is a young Sikh from the village of Kheri, in the Ludhiana district of Punjab, India. He fears kidnapping and death by criminals with militant views who are seeking revenge for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by the Appellant's deceased father. [8] The Appellant's father was a prominent XXXX XXXX in Punjab. He received XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and was instrumental in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX He had received threats as well as bribes in return for not identifying the two men in court, but he did so anyway. [9] After their XXXX XXXX XXXX, he received death threats from the members of that militant gang but he did not take them seriously. He was killed on XXXX XXXX, 2010, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX indicating that revenge was taken on him for the XXXX XXXX and that his family would be destroyed. [10] In noting his father's XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She started working as a XXXX. His mother also received anonymous calls threatening that she would be killed if she did not quit her job. [11] Meanwhile, the Appellant and his mother took a trip to Dubai in XXXX of 2014 and then to the United States. They travelled to the United States between XXXX 2015 and XXXX 2015. The Appellant's mother also travelled to Canada from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2015, and then returned to India. The Appellant did not join her in Canada and returned to India on XXXX XXXX, 2015. [12] When the Appellant's mother returned, she learned that one of the criminals had been let out of jail. He threatened to kidnap and kill the Appellant, who was his mother's only son. The second criminal was also going to be released on bail soon and once he was out, the threat would be acted on. [13] The Appellant's mother asked him to move to Mohali to hide at a friend's house. In XXXX 2015 she decided to send him to Canada, since he still had a valid Canadian visa. He arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2015, and went to live with a family friend. [14] The plan was to wait until the two criminal men returned to jail and the anonymous calls stopped, then the Appellant would return to India. However, neither of these things occurred. [15] In XXXX 2016, the Appellant's mother visited him in Canada and returned to India in XXXX 2017. She could not take him back with her as it was still not safe and there was a serious risk to the Appellant's life. [16] In XXXX 2017, some unknown men visited the Appellant's uncle's residence in XXXX and inquired about the Appellant's whereabouts and when he would be returning to India. They then further threatened to kill the Appellant upon his return whenever he was spotted. [17] The Appellant's mother then advised him to never return to India and he went to Montreal at the end of XXXX 2017, consulted with a lawyer and claimed asylum in July 2017. RPD decision3 [18] Credibility was the determinative issue in this matter for the RPD. [19] The RPD found that the Appellant gave testimony marked by contradictions and inconsistencies. The RPD was not satisfied as to the Appellant's credibility, to the point that she did not believe his allegations, for the following reasons: * Despite his father being murdered and the threat against the family, the Appellant-through his mother-took no precautions to protect himself and remained at the same address; * The Appellant's mother waited until XXXX of 2015 to send him to stay at his uncle's in Samrala and then on to Mohali and later Canada; * There was a contradiction in his IMM5669 form about his place of residence, either in Samrala or Kheri, and the RPD thought that the Appellant adjusted his testimony on this; * The Appellant submitted no corroborating evidence about the circumstances of his father's murder; * The Appellant's delay to claim, having stayed in the U.S. from XXXX to XXXX 2015, and having arrived in Canada in XXXX 2015 and only requesting asylum in July 2017; * Finally, the RPD gave no probative value to the Appellant's other documents filed in evidence, due to his overall lack of credibility. Appellant's arguments4 [20] The Appellant argues that the RPD based its decision upon an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it. He also argues that the RPD failed to observe the principle of natural justice in this case. [21] The Appellant submits that the RPD's decision is based upon speculation and not supported by any evidence. The Appellant provided rational explanations to address the concerns the RPD raised during the hearing of his refugee claim. The RPD completely failed to provide any plausible reasons for not accepting the testimony of the Appellant, including on the matter of his subjective fear and delay to claim in Canada. [22] He argues that his testimony should be presumed to be the truth, unless there are serious reasons to disbelieve it, such as if it is either contradicted, internally inconsistent or implausible, and that his testimony should have been listened to as a whole with an objective and open mind, citing Maldonado and other Federal Court jurisprudence.5 [23] The Appellant also argues that the RPD failed to assess his claim as a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of the IRPA. There may well be instances where a refugee claimant, whose identity is not disputed, is found to be not credible with respect to his subjective fear of persecution but the country conditions are such that the claimant's particular circumstances make him a person in need of protection. A negative credibility determination which may be determinative of a refugee claim under section 96 is not necessarily determinative of a claim under section 97 (1).6 [24] Finally, he argues generally that the RPD failed to consider the entire evidence before making her decision with respect to credibility and failed to consider and also misconstrued the independent documentary evidence properly presented and which supported the allegation made by the Appellant. STANDARD OF REVIEW [25] When reviewing the RPD decision, I am required to independently assess all the evidence and determine whether the RPD was correct in relation to each alleged error of law, fact or mixed fact and law. I may defer to the RPD in the exceptional situation that I find that it had a meaningful advantage in the circumstances, and reasons will be provided in that situation.7 ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL The RPD erred in assessing the Appellant's credibility [26] Having reviewed the record, including the Appellant's personal documents as well as listening to the recording of the RPD hearing, I am not satisfied with the RPD's credibility assessment of the Appellant. In my opinion, the Appellant gave a satisfactory explanation for not fleeing after his father was murdered, because no more threats were issued against him after this event, and he actually resided in Samrala at a hostel where he attended school, as opposed to living at his parents' house in Kheri. As well, he explained how his uncle lived in Samrala and he would see him from time to time. [27] The Appellant also gave a satisfactory explanation about his delay to claim, his fear beginning in XXXX 2015 when one of the criminals was released on bail, and then waiting in Canada to see if he could go back. I found it credible, on a balance of probabilities, that he was so much under the influence of his mother and the family friend who was hosting him in part because of his young age, that he was dependent on their advice and instructions and waited for them to tell him what to do. [28] I also think that it was an error not to give any probative value to the Appellant's supporting documents, based on the finding that he lacked credibility overall. The one document that the RPD commented on was the father's death certificate, and that it lacked probative value because it did not mention the circumstances of his father's death. It is not unusual for death certificates to not mention the circumstances of the death, and the rest of the documents had probative value to support the Appellant's narrative about where and when he attended school, the photos of his parents showing them in XXXX XXXX, and that the date of his father's death appears on his photo. His mother's affidavit, while it may be considered "self-serving" evidence, is at least accompanied by copies of government-issued ID. [29] On the whole, I found the RPD findings were slightly peripheral, and in certain cases based on a misunderstanding of the Appellant's testimony, which was forthright and sufficiently detailed. The Appellant testified about what he knew, and given that his mother did not tell him everything, he did not know some of the details and facts that the RPD was looking for. In the end, there was not enough to say that the Appellant was not credible, on a balance of probabilities. From my review of the evidence and listening to a recording of the hearing, I find that the RPD member was overzealous in her search for contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies. Because of this, it is my determination that the overall credibility assessment was incorrect. [30] Finally, with respect to the Appellant's argument that the RPD failed to assess his claim under section 97 of the IRPA, I find that the RPD was entitled to apply her credibility findings to both a sec. 96 and a sec. 97 analysis, and did not err on this point. [31] In this claim, the RPD's negative credibility findings regarding the Appellant's basis of fear of the criminals who threatened him could apply to both sec. 96 and 97 of the IRPA, as the analysis and findings went to the core of the Appellant's claim for protection.8 [32] The RPD did not believe the alleged threats and surrounding narrative around the Appellant's father's death at the core of this claim for asylum, being the Appellant's fear of criminals who killed his father in 2010. Because of this, there is no independent or credible documentary evidence in the record capable of supporting a positive disposition of this claim.9 [33] In my opinion, it was not necessary to do a separate and distinct analysis under sec. 97(1) of the IRPA. [34] That being said, it is my opinion that the determinative issue in this file is the availability of an IFA. As such, I will not proceed with a detailed analysis and explanation of my opinion of the credibility findings, but will go straight to an assessment of the evidence on the availability of a viable IFA in order to determine this appeal, and I will consider any credibility issues that relate to this assessment. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) [35] The topic of an IFA was canvassed during the hearing, and submissions were made. However the RPD did not decide on this. That being said, I disagree with the RPD's overall credibility conclusion, and in my opinion, the Appellant established that he could be subjected to a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, at the hands of the individuals who threatened him in the district of Ludhiana, should he return there. [36] As a result, I advised the Appellant that I would be analyzing IFA, specifically in Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi, as well as state protection, disclosed the latest National Documentation Package (NDP), including Tabs 10.6 and 14.8, and requested further submissions.10 [37] The Appellant responded to my request and filed supplementary submissions dated June 14, 2019.11 These will be addressed further below. [38] I have considered the updated research and information contained in the most current NDP as well as the Appellant's supplementary submissions. [39] I am of the opinion that the Appellant has a viable IFA in the cities of Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi. Here is why: The IFA test [40] This assessment is based on a two-prong test. First, there must be no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted in the part of the country identified as an IFA or that on a balance of probabilities, he would be subjected personally to a danger of torture or to a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the part of the country identified as the IFA. Secondly, the conditions in that part of the country must be such that it would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh in all the circumstances, including those particular to the Appellant, for the Appellant to seek refuge there.12 First prong - The Possibility of Persecution or Likelihood of Harm in the Proposed IFAs [41] During the hearing before the RPD, the Appellant was asked why he could not go live elsewhere, such as in Mumbai or Delhi. The Appellant responded that the police in Delhi or Mumbai would contact his village police in Punjab. He added that the police can be easily bribed as no one is honest there, giving the example of when the criminals tried to XXXX XXXX XXXX. [42] The RPD asked the Appellant why his mother could not do something to protect him as she was a XXXX XXXX. He responded that she occupied a low position as a XXXX and could do nothing. She had already asked for help when she received the threats and her superiors brushed her off. She did everything she could, including sending him to Canada. [43] During final submissions before the RPD, the Appellant's legal counsel referred to research reports found in the NDP, including the old Tab 14.8, and argued that because of the tenant verification system, which is mandatory, the Appellant will have to register wherever he moves to and his ID will be verified with the police in his home town. 13 At that point, his fear is that the police in his home town will give his new location to the individuals that have threatened him. He argued that police corruption is endemic and it is documented that they can be bribed. He added that the Appellant is a person of interest. [44] The Appellant's legal counsel went on to refer to these research reports to make the point that there is indeed collaboration between police forces and that they can track someone, if they wish to do so, through informal arrangements and friendships.14 As a result, he argued that there can be no viable IFA for the Appellant in India. [45] There was documentation filed before the RPD on country conditions in India, about violent and deadly attacks related to kidnappings for revenge or ransom, especially of children.15 [46] In his later written supplementary submissions, the Appellant repeated that it was primarily the tenant verification system that would put him at risk anywhere else in India, as the police in one of the proposed IFAs will do a background check on him and identify him instantly. [47] He referred to Tabs 10.2, 10.6 and 12.8 of the NDP updated March 29, 2019, and Tab 14.8 of the NDP updated May 31, 2019. [48] Tab 10.6 confirms that the tenant verification system is offered for free to all citizens by the police and the forms are widely available. [49] This same research report states that the police examine the documents and verify the past criminal records of the tenants before signing and attesting that the verification has been done. There is also a computer system to help with the verification, which I will also discuss below. [50] The research cited speaks of the increasing use of the Aadhaar card and how it is now used for more and more services. The use of this system of identification will lessen the chances of anonymity and equip the authorities with the ability to track anyone within minutes. [51] The Appellant also submits that he is wanted by police and there are warrants for his arrest, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This assertion in the additional submissions is hard to understand as it is incongruent with the facts asserted before the RPD. [52] Based on the above, the Appellant argues that it would be nearly impossible for him to live safely in any part of India. [53] The documentary evidence on the country conditions in India confirms that the tenant verification system exists and is enforced, but also that each state in India has a separate police force. There is no national police force. The research information in the most recent NDP confirms that tenant verification requirements in India could lead the local police to communicate or cross-check information with the police in Punjab, and that the verification process is supported by a digital portal, which enables citizens to "seek antecedent verification" of tenants.16 [54] The sources cited in the new Tab 14.8 of the NDP say that at least in Delhi, the police do send verification forms to the police station where the person previously lived. However, in almost all of the cases, the police in the other state fail to respond. Another source says that about 25 police stations in Delhi were visited to check on how the verification process was going, and the verification forms were found dumped with no action being taken to complete the procedure. There is also information cited that many landlords do not comply with the process and fail to register their tenants. [55] With respect to police communication and whether police can actively track someone down, in general, but especially in the search for suspected criminals, there is minimal interstate police communication, except for cases of major crime like smuggling, terrorism and some high profile organized crime.17 [56] Furthermore, in order for the Punjab police to track suspects who move to other states in India, they must have the co-operation of the police in the other state. They would likely only track someone in "extreme" cases, which would also require a court order.18 [57] Based on this research, despite the tenant verification system that is in place in the proposed IFAs, it seems that the police forces in India do not consistently follow through with the tenant verification process and it is highly unlikely that they would communicate across state lines in the search for individuals who are not seriously suspected of and wanted for major crimes. [58] The present case deals with allegations of threats received by criminals with militant leanings who murdered the Appellant's father because of his XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and for being instrumental in the XXXX XXXX XXXX of two of their members. The Appellant stated that his mother's superiors within the XXXX XXXX where she worked as a XXXX, did not want to help when she told them about the threats she was receiving. [59] The main argument presented in response to the proposed IFAs is that the Appellant will be subject to the tenant verification process and the police who are contacted in his home town will act in a corrupt fashion to disclose his current location to the criminals that have threatened him and his family. [60] In another research report found in the NDP, also referred to by the Appellant, there is information on the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) in India as a database with information on crime and criminals that interconnects police stations across the country, also referred to in the latest Tab 14.8.19 [61] This report says that with respect to tenant verification, the CCTNS is supposed to help with the verification process, and even though it is integrated in almost all police stations in India, police forces are ill-equipped and short-staffed to actually carry out such verifications. With respect to what information gets inputted into the CCTNS, the report speaks mainly about First Information Reports (FIR), and states that "[i]nformation about persons of interest is not recorded into the CCTNS but in classified databases" and police surveillance databases are classified and not shared across states. Finally, the report states that in matters of criminal investigation, and even for persons of interest, police will only communicate across state lines in cases of major crimes. [62] The new Tab 14.8 of the NDP contains a user manual with screenshots of the CCTNS and instructions on how citizens are to make a tenant verification request. Given the research cited above, it is difficult to say with any certainty to what extent this system is used and fully effective. [63] In my opinion, the issue in the present case is not whether the tenant verification system will actually be followed through or whether the Appellant's new location will be disclosed to the police in his home village in Punjab, it is rather, will the police in his home village then turn around and disclose his new location to the criminals that he fears. [64] His vague statements that the police will tell the criminals where he has moved to because they are corrupt and can be bribed are not enough for me to believe, on a balance of probabilities, that the criminals will come to know where he has relocated, or that they will then track him down and harm him. This is a local problem restricted to Punjab and more specifically the district of Ludhiana and does not show that anyone will be searching for him all over India. [65] His father was a XXXX XXXX XXXX who was killed XXXX XXXX XXXX, and his mother works as a XXXX XXXX with the same XXXX XXXX in Ludhiana. The superiors of this XXXX XXXX were told that the family was receiving threats. In my opinion, it is overly speculative to say that members of this XXXX XXXX will give out the Appellant's new location to violent criminals who have already killed a XXXX XXXX, because they will be bribed to do so. [66] Furthermore, there is no evidence that his name is on a list of individuals wanted for serious crimes, and there is no evidence that the police laid formal accusations against him or that they issued a FIR or a warrant for his arrest. As such, it is highly unlikely that his personal information will be stored in the CCTNS database, or any other database used by the authorities in India. [67] In other words, for the reasons listed above, the fact that the Appellant will have to present his ID and the existence of the tenant verification system does not put the Appellant at risk in one of the proposed IFAs. [68] As a result, I conclude that the Appellant has not established a serious possibility of persecution or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be subjected to a danger of torture or to a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Mumbai, Bangalore or Delhi. Second prong - Relocation to the Proposed IFAs Is Reasonable [69] The Appellant has the onus of demonstrating that the proposed IFA is objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh. [70] Case law has established a very high threshold when determining whether the proposed IFA is unduly harsh: "It requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area." 20 [71] During final submissions before the RPD, the Appellant's legal counsel did not address this part of the IFA test, neither in the supplementary submissions that I received. [72] I note that the Appellant does not have any work experience but that he has completed his secondary school education in India, with a specialty in XXXX, and speaks Punjabi, Hindi and English.21 His mother has been paying for his expenses while he is in Canada and thus she has the means to continue to help him with another relocation.22 This points to the fact that the Appellant would be able to adapt to a new environment within India. [73] I also note that Tab 12.8 of the NDP, which examines the situation of Sikhs from the Punjab area who relocate elsewhere in India, reports that almost every major Indian city has a strong Sikh community. Several sources cited in the document reveal that Sikh minorities living in areas outside the Punjab have access to housing, employment, health care, education and have the freedom to practice their religion. Moreover, they generally do not face difficulties when they relocate to other areas of India.23 [74] I have considered the Appellant's personal situation and the documentary evidence, including the country conditions that prevail for Sikhs who relocate in India. I conclude that the Appellant has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that it would be objectively unreasonable for him to relocate to Mumbai, Bangalore or Delhi or that his life and safety would be at risk. State protection [75] During the hearing and in the Appellant's written narrative, he states that the police in his village were not willing to help him, even though his mother is a XXXX XXXX and approached her superiors to complain about being threatened. His lawyer argued that the Appellant fears that the police in his village will act corruptly and give away his new location to the individuals who killed his father, who was a XXXX XXXX XXXX, and who then threatened him. [76] The Appellant did not provide any evidence or submissions to the effect that he would not be able to get state protection in Mumbai, Bangalore or Delhi, should he continue to have a problem with the individuals who threatened him, besides his assertion that the police can easily be bribed and no one is honest there. [77] Based on my finding of the existence of a viable IFA in Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi, there is no need to pursue with an analysis of state protection. RAD CONCLUSION [78] The RPD erred on the assessment of the Appellant's credibility and its overall decision based on credibility is incorrect. [79] The Appellant established that the individuals who were threatening him could be a danger to him in the district of Ludhiana, Punjab should he return there. [80] That being said, on the whole, I conclude that the Appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or that, on a balance of probabilities, he could be subjected personally to a danger of torture or a risk to life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he relocates to Mumbai, Bangalore or Delhi. [81] Moreover, the Appellant did not establish that it would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh, in all the circumstances, including those particular to himself, for him to relocate to any of these cities. [82] The finding on the availability of a viable IFA is determinative of this appeal. [83] As a result, I confirm the decision of the RPD, for different reasons, concluding that XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a "Convention refugee", nor a "person in need of protection".24 [84] The appeal is dismissed. Julie Corry Me Julie Corry July 2, 2019 Date JC/lp 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, art. 96, 97(1) and 111(1)(a). 2 Appellant's Basis of Claim form, including a narrative, pages 15-26 of the RPD record (BOC); RPD reasons and decision (English version), dated October 12, 2017, at paras. 2-5, page 4 of the RPD record; Appellant's memorandum, dated February 7, 2018, at paras. 1-9, pages 20-22 of the Appeal Record. 3 RPD reasons and decision (English version), dated October 12, 2017, pages 3 to 8 of the RPD record (RPD Reasons). 4 Appellant's memorandum, dated February 7, 2018, pages 20-22 of the Appeal Record (Appellant's memorandum). 5 Maldonado v. Canada, 1980 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); Villarroel v. ME.I (1979) 31 n.r. 50; Armson v. M.E.I. (1989) 9 Imm. L.R. (2D) 150; Attakora v. M.E.I. (1989) FCA Digest D 1486-04; Van Anh Nguyen v. M.C.I. (1997) IMM 1533-96; Mohammed Sadique v. M.E.I. (1993) 92-T-1886. 6 Bouauni v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2003 FC 1211. 7 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (Huruglica). 8 Ikeme v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 21, paras. 39-44. 9 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Sellan, 2008 FCA 381, para. 3. 10 See NDP for India, May 31, 2019. 11 Appellant's written supplementary submissions dated June 14, 2019. 12 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A.); Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (F.C.A.). 13 See NDP for India, July 20, 2017, Tab 14.8 - Requirements and procedures for tenant registration, including implementation, particularly in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Bangalore (2009-April 2013), IRB RIR IND104372.E dated May 9, 2013. This report has been updated to May 14, 2019 and the latest version can be found in the May 31, 2019 NDP, it was disclosed to the Appellant. 14 See NDP for India, July 20, 2017, Tab 16.1 - India: Communication between police offices across the country; whether police across India can locate an individual, particularly as a result of registration requirements for employment, housing and education, security checks, and technological surveillance, IRB RIR IND104065.E dated May 14, 2012. This report has since been removed from the NDP on India. See also Tab 16.3 - India: Police communication and collaboration between stations; police communications technology; reasons for a state-wide or national search, inter-state arrests (2009-April 2013), IRB RIR IND104371.E dated May 13, 2013. This report has also since been removed from the NDP on India. See also Tab 16.9 - Situation of Sikhs outside the state of Punjab, including treatment by authorities; ability of Sikhs to relocate within India, including challenges they may encounter (2009-April 2013), IRB RIR IND104369.E dated May 13, 2013. This report is still in the current NDP at Tab 12.8. 15 Appellant's document G/1 before the RPD, pp. 74-96 of the RPD record. 16 See NDP for India, May 31, 2019, Tab 14.8: India: Requirements and procedures for tenant registration (or tenant verification), including implementation, particularly in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru (2016-May 2019), IRB RIR IND106289.E dated May 14, 2019, p. 1 of 24. 17 See NDP for India, May 31, 2019, Tab 10.2: India: Communication between police offices across the country, including the use of POLNET; whether police across India can locate an individual, particularly as a result of registration requirements for employment, housing and education, security checks, and surveillance technology (2013-May 2016), IRB RIR IND105494.E dated May 10, 2016, p. 1 of 12. 18 See NDP for India, May 31, 2019, Tab 12.8: Situation of Sikhs outside the State of Punjab, including treatment by authorities; ability of Sikhs to relocate within India, including challenges they may encounter (2009-April 2013), IRB RIR IND104369.E dated May 13, 2013, at p. 9. 19 See NDP for India, May 31, 2019, Tab 10.6: India: Surveillance by state authorities; communication between police offices across the country, including use of the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS); categories of persons that may be included in police databases; tenant verification; whether police authorities across India are able to locate an individual (2016-May 2018) dated June 25, 2018. 20 Ranganathan v. Canada, [2001] 2 C.F. 164 (F.C.A.) at para. 15. 21 CIC Schedule A - Background/Declaration IMM-5669, p. 38 of the RPD record; BOC form, p. 16 of the RPD record. 22 BOC narrative, at para. 14, p. 22 of the RPD record. 23 See NDP for India, May 31, 2019, Tab 12.8: Situation of Sikhs outside the State of Punjab, including treatment by authorities; ability of Sikhs to relocate within India, including challenges they may encounter (2009-April 2013), IRB RIR IND104369.E dated May 13, 2013. 24 IRPA, sec. 96, 97(1), 111(1)(a). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (September 11, 2014) Disponible en français RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB8-01755 16