A Federal Court has upheld decisions to deny the asylum claims of an Indian couple, ruling that their argument—that they would face persecution in India due to their pro-Khalistan activities in Canada—was not made in good faith.
In a judgment published on Monday, Federal Court Judge Benoit M. Duchesne deemed “reasonable” the earlier decisions by Canada’s Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) and the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). This ruling reinforces the government's stance on scrutinizing the authenticity of asylum claims, particularly those amended after an applicant's arrival in Canada.
The Case and Its Evolution
The principal applicant, 38-year-old Amandeep Singh, and the associate applicant, 32-year-old Kanwaldeep Kaur, initially filed for asylum based on claims of local harassment in Punjab. They alleged that a neighbour with political connections had orchestrated a campaign of persecution against them, resulting in police interrogation, threats, beatings, and a sexual assault against Ms. Kaur. They stated they fled to Delhi in 2018 before arriving in Canada that same June on a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV).
However, upon their claim’s review, the couple significantly amended its basis. Before their RPD hearing, they asserted that they “had become supporters of Khalistan during their time in Canada and will be persecuted as a result of their new political activities if they are returned to India.”
To support this new claim, they submitted photographs of themselves at protests and voter registration cards for the “Punjab Referendum Khalistan,” issued by the organization Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which is banned as an unlawful association in India.
"Disingenuous" Finding Upheld by Multiple Tribunals
The RPD, which heard the case in late 2023, found the chronology of the applicants’ newfound political interest undermined their credibility. The board noted that their stated involvement in the Khalistan movement began only after they had already left India and were in Canada, describing it as lacking genuineness.
On February 15, 2024, the RAD agreed with this assessment, qualifying the claim as “disingenuous and lacking good faith.” The RAD also raised doubts about the credibility of their original claims of persecution in India, noting inconsistencies and a lack of corroborating evidence.
Judge Duchesne’s ruling this week validated these findings. “The Applicants have not established that the Decision is unreasonable,” he wrote. “There is no basis for the Court to interfere with the RAD’s decision.”
Leave Your Comment