TC0-04687

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-04687 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 15, 2021 Date de la décision Panel T. Card Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Mandeep Chaudhery Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Appellant") is a citizen of India. He is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for protection on the basis that he was found not credible. DETERMINATION [2] The Appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS [3] The Appellant is a citizen of India. The Appellant alleges that he entered into a relationship with a woman (the "Girlfriend") in a lower caste, in Punjab State, without the blessing of the Girlfriend's family. [4] The Appellant was attacked on two occasions by the Girlfriend's brother and some associates. The police in the area refused to offer the Appellant protection. [5] The Appellant fled to New Delhi where he lived for a month without incident. The Appellant then came to Canada where he made his claim for protection. [6] At the RPD Hearing, the RPD Member and Appellant's Counsel agreed that there was no nexus to the Refugee Convention. This is also not raised as an appeal issue here by the Appellant. Therefore, the only ground being advanced is as a person in need of protection under s.97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1. [7] The RPD rejected the claim on the basis the Appellant had not established that he still faced a risk to his life, of torture, or of cruel and unusual treatment. The RPD also found that the Appellant had safe and reasonable Internal Flight Alternatives (IFAs) to New Delhi, Mumbai, Goa, or Chennai. NO NEW EVIDENCE OR ORAL HEARING [8] The Appellant did not submit any new evidence to be considered under s.110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).2 No analysis of new evidence is therefore required. [9] As an oral hearing can only be held where there is new evidence that has been admitted under s.110(4), and since there is no new evidence in this case, no oral hearing is required. ISSUES IN APPEAL [10] The Appellant argued the following issues in his appeal: (a) The RPD erred by finding the Appellant had a safe and reasonable IFA. (b) The RPD erred in its analysis of the Appellant's evidence and the risk to life, threat of torture, or cruel and unusual treatment. [11] I find the following issues to be determinative: (a) Whether the Appellant faces, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment. (b) IFA. ANALYSIS [12] I have conducted an independent analysis of the evidence concerned, including reviewing the RPD hearing, as well as considering the Appellant's Memorandum,3 the RPD Decision,4 and the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) form,5 amongst other documents. Appellant does not face a future risk to life, risk of torture, or cruel and unusual treatment [13] The RPD noted that since the Appellant's contact with the Girlfriend ended on XXXX XXXX 2019, he has received no news about her, and made no attempts to even re-establish contact with her. Furthermore, the RPD noted that the Appellant was able to live for a month in New Delhi without incident, including receiving no threats. [14] The Appellant has argued that the RPD has "failed to understand the gravity of [his] situation"6. However, he then just reiterates his claim as being in danger because the relationship was between members of two different castes, the fact there was pre-marital sex, and the fact the relationship was not arranged or authorised by her parents. [15] The Appellant has not addressed the issue that he needs to establish that he faces, on a balance of probabilities (not reasonable likelihood, as we are considering s.97 only, and not s.96), a risk to his life, a risk of torture, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment. [16] Before me, I have no evidence that there have been threats to the Appellant since at least XXXX 2019 when the Appellant was in New Delhi. The Appellant is no longer in contact with the Girlfriend, which was what the Girlfriend's family members wanted to achieve. [17] This absence of evidence means that, on a balance of probabilities, he does not face a risk to his life, a risk of torture, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment. I find the RPD did correctly find this to be the case and I uphold these findings accordingly. Appellant has suitable IFAs [18] The RPD also found that in any case, the Appellant also had safe and reasonable IFAs including New Delhi, Mumbai, Goa, and Chennai. As part of this, the RPD noted that the Appellant was able to live in New Delhi for a month without incident. [19] The Appellant has argued that the RPD misconstrued his evidence in relation to living in New Delhi, and that as he changed his appearance, he was in hiding. The Appellant then cited the case of Zaytoun,7 which states that if a claimant or appellant has to hide in the IFA, this does not then constitute a reasonable IFA. [20] I note that the circumstances in Zaytoun are quite different to those in this case. In Zaytoun, the appellant was a Lebanese Shiite Muslim who was being asked to relocate to a Christian part of Lebanon. There, the Federal Court noted that Mr. Zaytoun would have to hide his Muslim identity from almost all of his neighbours who were Christian. This is a far cry from the Appellant in our case, who is one person, who is of no interest to the vast majority of the 11 to 18 million people living in New Delhi,8 a population equivalent to or even greater than Ontario's, in one city. [21] The Appellant grew a beard and started wearing a turban, but this is all the "hiding" he has testified to. This is far less onerous than the hiding in the Zaytoun case, which in that case, would also infringe on Mr. Zaytoun's freedom of religion. No such infringement on a fundamental right exists in our case here. [22] The Appellant has testified that his agents of persecution could locate him via police registration. However, I note that even with such registration, the system appears to be deficient in actually accomplishing citizen tracking and identity checking. [23] Of particular note is the Response to Information Request (RIR) on police surveillance.9 The database being rolled out across India has "...yet to become operational in the sense that the police are still not able to trace a person based upon information collected under this project."10 Furthermore, the database itself appears to be deficient. "[T]he 'police force is just ill-equipped and short-staffed to actually carry out such verifications when they get over 50 forms daily' (The Indian Express 11 Dec. 2017). According to the Associate Professor, '[i]nformation about tenants is very limited and Delhi/Mumbai and a few other metropolises have intermittently tried to develop a database and verify the information. To the best of [his] knowledge, this is very inadequate and not updated regularly'."11 [24] Furthermore, "[p]olice surveillance databases are classified and not shared across states. Concerned officers can seek information through normal official channels."12 This further undermines the Appellant's allegation that the agents of persecution would be able to locate him through a police database. [25] I therefore find that the RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant has safe IFAs in any of New Delhi, Mumbai, Goa, or Chennai. [26] In relation to the reasonableness prong, I note that a lack of family support does not then create a hardship situation so great as to render any of the proposed IFAs unreasonable. Indeed, as pointed out by the RPD, the Appellant has no such supports in Canada either. [27] The RPD was correct to point out the Appellant has been educated to a post-secondary level, improving his ability to live in any of the proposed IFAs. [28] I find that the Appellant has not established that any of the IFAs are unreasonable. I find the RPD was correct in finding that any of the aforementioned IFAs are reasonable ones. [29] I find the RPD was correct and did not err in finding that any of New Delhi, Mumbai, Goa, or Chennai constitute safe and reasonable IFAs. CONCLUSION [30] Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RPD's decision that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed. [31] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) T. Card T. Card 15 March 2021 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Ibid. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, Pages 1-3. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, Pages 3-6. 5 Ibid., Exhibit 2, Pages 7-21. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, Page 1, Paragraph 3. 7 Zaytoun v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2014 F.C. 939. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), India, 31 May 2019, Item 1.9: ?Socio-economic profile of Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Ludhiana, Mumbai, including population, demographics and economy; tenant registration requirements (2016-April 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 25 May 2018. IND106101.E, Page 4. 9 Ibid., Exhibit 3, NDP, India, 31 May 2019, Item 10.6: ?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... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 25 June 2018. IND106120.E. 10 Ibid., Page 13. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-04687 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 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.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français