I. Overview

[1] The applicant, Harpreetsingh Palsingh Sardar [applicant], is seeking judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] decision which rejected his refugee protection claim [Decision]. In its Decision, the RAD confirmed the Refugee Protection Division [RPD]’s decision in finding that the applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection because there is a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] in India. Also, the RAD rejected the applicant’s refugee protection claim, finding that he was not credible.

[2] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The applicant did not show that the Decision was unreasonable.

II. Facts

[3] On August 4, 2012, the applicant fled India, his country of origin. He claims that he fears persecution from his girlfriend’s father, who had attacked him. The applicant submits that his girlfriend’s father has links with the Bharatiya Janata Party. The applicant arrived in Canada on a study permit, the renewal of which was denied in 2014.

[4] On August 31, 2022, the applicant claimed refugee status in Canada. On June 4, 2023, the applicant submitted an addendum to his Basis of Claim Form which argues that the agent of persecution and the police are still looking for him in India. On May 25, 2023, the RPD rejected the applicant’s refugee protection claim on the ground that he has an IFA in India. The applicant appealed the RPD’s decision to the RAD.

[5] In the appeal proceedings, the RAD asked the applicant to provide the original documents adduced into evidence before the RPD. The RAD also advised the applicant that it would deal with a new issue on appeal, i.e., analysis of his credibility. The Tribunal gave him an opportunity to file new submissions on this point, which he did on September 13, 2023.

[6] On November 15, 2023, the RAD rejected the applicant’s refugee protection claim, finding that he was not credible. The RAD also confirmed the RPD’s decision regarding the IFA. The RAD found that the applicant failed to show a serious possibility of persecution on one of the Convention grounds, or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would face a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or even torture should he return to India.

III. Issues and standard of review

[7] The sole issue is whether the Decision is unreasonable.

[8] The parties agree that the Court must consider the merits of the Decision by applying the reasonableness standard (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 10, 16–17, 25 [Vavilov]). I am also of the view that the reasonableness standard applies to the reasons for the Decision.

[9] In judicial review, the Court has to analyze and determine whether a decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency and intelligibility (Vavilovat para 99). What is reasonable in a given situation will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review (Vavilov at para 90). A decision is unreasonable where the decision maker has misapprehended the evidence in the record (Vavilov at paras 125, 126). The burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).

IV. Analysis

[10] The applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable because the RAD failed to assess the availability of state protection.

[11] At the hearing, the applicant argued that the RAD had rejected all the evidence regarding the applicant’s credibility. In rejecting the refugee protection claim on the basis of applicant’s credibility, the RAD erred in failing to consider the availability of state protection in its analysis of the risk alleged by the applicant should he return to India. The RAD should have analyzed the relevant documentation on India and acknowledged the seriousness of the applicant’s situation. The applicant submits that even though India is considered as a parliamentary democracy, he is still facing corruption problems, which are well documented. The applicant relies on this portrait of India to claim that he cannot avail himself of state protection.

[12] On the other hand, the respondent submits that the RAD did not analyze the issue of state protection because the RAD’s conclusions on the applicant’s credibility and the IFA were determinative and sufficient to reject his refugee protection claim. It was reasonable for the RAD to find that the applicant did not face a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA because the evidence did not establish the agent of persecution’s motivation, or that he would be persecuted because of his Sikh faith should he return to India. Also, the respondent highlights that the RAD’s conclusions on the IFA and the credibility of the applicant’s story were not disputed by the applicant in judicial review.

[13] The respondent also argues that the RAD was careful to detail its conclusions regarding the applicant’s credibility. The RAD noted several authenticity issues regarding various documents submitted by the applicant. For example, the RAD noted the differences between the original and various versions of the documents submitted before the RPD and RAD. The respondent also argues that the general conclusions on the applicant’s lack of credibility undermined these allegations of persecution, which is the core of the refugee protection claim. This was sufficient to reject the refugee protection claim. However, the RAD also conducted the IFA analysis established by the RPD.

[14] I agree with the respondent’s arguments that the RAD was not obliged to consider the question of state protection as it had already decided the determinative issues of the credibility of the applicant’s refugee protection claim and the availability of an IFA (citing Simranjit v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 CF 1791, 2024 FC 1791 [Simranjit] at para 8; Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 6 at para 42 [Singh]).

[15] This Court has already considered the applicant’s argument that the RAD should have analyzed the question of state protection issue despite having found a lack of credibility or an available IFA. The case law confirms that the IFA issue is determinative for refugee protection claims and that the RAD does not have to deal with the question of state protection once it has determined that an IFA is available (Simranjitat para 8; Singh at para 42).

[16] Also, it is well established that the RAD and the RPD are under no obligation to examine the question of state protection when they find that the allegations supporting the refugee protection claim lack credibility. In these circumstances, the question of state protection is also secondary, (Ankrah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 728 at paras 16–19 citing Gomez Florez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 659 at para 39).

V. Conclusion

[17] The Decision is therefore a reasonable outcome. In applying the reasonableness standard, the Decision meets the requirements of justification, transparency and intelligibility. It is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

[18] The parties confirmed that there were no questions to be certified, and I agree that none arise.

[19] Finally, the style of cause will be amended to correctly name the respondent as “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration” instead of the “Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.”

JUDGMENT in IMM-15666-23

THIS COURT JUDGMNET is as follows:

1)The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2)There is no question to certify.
3)The style of cause is amended to name the respondent as “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.”

“Phuong T.V. Ngo”

Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

IMM-15666-23

STYLE OF CAUSE:

HARPREETSINGH PALSINGH SARDAR v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:

MONTREAL, QUEBEC

DATE OF HEARING:

JANUARY 30, 2025

JUDGMENT AND REASONS:

NGO J

DATED:

FEBRUARY 10, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Paul Eyouck

FOR THE APPLICANT

Jeanne Robert

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Étude Légal Eyouck

Counsel

Montreal, Quebec

FOR THE APPLICANT

Attorney General of Canada

Montreal, Quebec

FOR THE RESPONDENT

Sardar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 256

Case Summary

I. Overview

II. Facts

III. Issues and standard of review

IV. Analysis

V. Conclusion

Sardar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 256

Case Summary

I. Overview

II. Facts

III. Issues and standard of review

IV. Analysis

V. Conclusion