Randhawa v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2474-97
Campbell J.
2/2/98
10 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD decision applicants not Convention refugees-Applicants Sikh family from India-Principal applicant farmer-Wealthy by Indian standards-Principal applicant's wife well-educated, elected member of village council-Convention refugee claim based on religion, membership in particular social group, perceived political opinion-In January 1996 police detaining, beating principal applicant, demanding payment of 500,000 rupees-After making partial payment, again detained, beaten, burned, threatened-Family fleeing to Delhi where stayed with wife's mother-Police appearing at mother-in-law's residence demanding to see principal applicant-Family leaving for Canada three months later-CRDD determining principal applicant persecuted, not because Sikh, but because wealthy farmer-CRDD's decision that where extortion sole basis for persecution, and therefore insufficient link or nexus to definition of Convention refugee, finding precedent in several cases-In Karpounin v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995), 92 F.T.R. 219 (F.C.T.D.) where applicant subject to extortion because financially successful businessman, not because of political opinion or membership in political social group, Court holding not qualifying as Convention refugee-In Balendra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 191 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), Court accepting Refugee Board's decision problems associated with having to pay bribe neither related to one of grounds of definition of Convention refugee, nor constituting persecution or giving rise to wellfounded fear of persecution, but more akin to corruption-In Soberanis v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 1282 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), TremblayLamer J. holding small business proprietors in Guatemala victimized by extortionists acting in concert with police authorities not particular social group recognized under definition of Convention refugee-But in this case, considering extensive evidence of persecution of Sikhs in India, CRDD making erroneous finding of fact in compartmentalizing applicant as Sikh from fact prominent wealthy person-Board should have considered applicant as member of social group "prominent wealthy Sikhs"-That police tracing applicant, family to Delhi proving could not live safely in Delhi-That travelled in car with tinted glass to avoid detection, travelled at night and applicant's wife's testimony would not leave residence, proving family in hiding-CRDD decision set aside, matter referred back to differently constituted panel for rehearing on basis principal applicant member of social group "prominent wealthy Sikhs".