CAT/C/68/D/568/2013
wife and children moved out of his father’s home. These inconsistencies led the Refugee
Protection Division to reject the complainant’s claim of regular raids on his father’s home.
2.7
The Refugee Protection Division also noted the complainant’s testimony that he had
been the only member of his family to be pursued regarding the location of his uncle. The
Division also noted that he had not been formally charged and that he had been released
after each alleged detention upon the payment of a bribe. Moreover, the complainant had
spent one month in Punjab and a further three months in New Delhi without incident.
Additionally, the complainant had been able to leave India in 2009 and also in 2011 on his
own passport.
2.8
The Refugee Protection Division found that documentary evidence on conditions in
India indicated that Sikhs who feared local police and who were of no interest to the central
authorities were able to safely relocate to other parts of India. The Division found no
support for the complainant’s contention that he would be regarded with greater suspicion
because he was from Jammu. It concluded that an internal flight alternative was available to
the complainant, in particular in Mumbai or Bangalore, based on objective country reports
and the complainant’s profile as a person unlikely to be sought by authorities outside of his
local area. The Division determined that the complainant was neither a refugee within the
meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees nor a person in need of
protection.
2.9
The complainant applied for leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the
Refugee Protection Division to the Federal Court of Canada. On 14 August 2013, the
Federal Court denied the complainant’s application for leave.
2.10 The complainant states that, at around 11 p.m. on 28 October 2013, police in civilian
clothing raided his parents’ home in Jammu and arrested his father. They took him to a
police station and tortured him to ascertain the complainant’s whereabouts. His father was
released from the police station the next day after the intervention of influential locals and
the payment of a bribe.
2.11 On 27 November 2013, the complainant applied for a pre-removal risk assessment.
Under section 112 (2) (b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the application
could not be processed, because fewer than 12 months had passed since the rejection of the
asylum claim. The 12-month period of ineligibility for a pre-removal risk assessment
expired on 21 February 2014. The complainant made a new application on 17 March 2014.
The application was not accepted because the complainant had not yet been given a
notification by the Canadian authorities that he could apply for a pre-removal risk
assessment, as required under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
2.12 On 29 February 2016, the complainant filed another application for a pre-removal
risk assessment. His application was rejected on 23 May 2018 on the ground that there was
insufficient evidence to conclude that he would be subjected to persecution, torture, a risk
to his life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to India. A
representative of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration found that the documents
provided by the complainant, including affidavits from his father and two local councillors,
a hospital note, several undated copies of photographs allegedly of the complainant and of
his father, as well as reports on conditions in India, largely reiterated the evidence he had
already provided in his asylum claim. Furthermore, the medical documentation contained
no information as to how the complainant’s injuries had been sustained and it had not been
signed by a doctor. The submitted photographs were undated and devoid of any means of
identification.
2.13 On 17 March 2014, the complainant submitted an application for permanent
residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate considerations. On 25 May 2018,
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration denied the application, referring to the
conclusion of the Refugee Protection Division that the complainant had an internal flight
alternative and to the rejection of his application for a pre-removal risk assessment dated 23
May 2018. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concluded that, while the
complainant had integrated in Canada, he was able to resettle in India and there was
insufficient evidence that he would face hardship there or that he would be targeted due to
his Sikh religion.
3