On 20th November, the Canadian Federal Court rejected the asylum request of a Sikh man from Punjab who claimed he had suffered persecution in India because of his alleged support for the Khalistan movement and because of his sexual orientation. The applicant, identified as Gagandeep Singh, belongs to Jaito Sarja in the Gurdaspur district of Punjab.

Justice Denis Gascon upheld the earlier ruling of the Refugee Appeal Division, which had already dismissed his claim. The court agreed that Gagandeep had a safe internal flight alternative within India, specifically in Mumbai or New Delhi, where he could have relocated instead of seeking asylum abroad. The court emphasised that the evidence on record did not support the idea that he faced any unavoidable threat across the country.

Claim of romance, police torture and Khalistan activism

In his application, Gagandeep told Canadian authorities that he had been involved in a romantic relationship with a man belonging to an influential Hindu family in Batala, Punjab. This man has been referred to in court papers as “DS”. According to Gagandeep, DS’s father discovered the homosexual relationship in 2017 and reacted violently by beating him.

He further stated that DS’s father then used his influence within the Punjab Police to raid Gagandeep’s home, arrest him, torture him, and falsely accuse him by branding him as a Sikh militant.

Gagandeep also claimed that “radical Sikhs” assaulted him in December 2017, verbally abusing him and calling him a stain on Sikhism because he was homosexual. He said that before flying to Canada, he fled first to Jalandhar and then to Chandigarh to avoid the danger he felt around him.

Once he reached Canada, Gagandeep said he participated in Khalistan-related activities and supported referendums. He argued that if he returned to India, authorities there would target him as a pro-Khalistan activist.

Refugee board finds story vague and delay unexplained

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD), however, did not find his statements convincing. The RPD described his testimony as vague and lacking enough detail to be considered credible. They noted that he did not sufficiently prove he had been in a same-sex relationship or that his connection with DS was genuinely romantic. Many of his responses, according to the RPD, simply repeated information already written in his original claim form.

Regarding his claims of persecution, the RPD found no supporting evidence. They stated that he did not provide any First Information Report (FIR) from Punjab or any proof that he was ever under a genuine police investigation. They also pointed out that he managed to leave India without any difficulty, and no charges against him had been recorded. His claims of being linked to Sikh militants were also seen as implausible.

Gagandeep’s attempt to rely on pro-Khalistan activities in Canada also worked against him. The RPD noted that he had not mentioned any such activities in his original documentation, which raised doubts and created a negative inference. They further said his understanding of the Khalistan movement was far too shallow for someone claiming to be a true supporter.

Another factor that weakened his case was his immigration record. Gagandeep had entered Canada on a student visa but did not study. Instead, he stayed for 4.5 years, violating the terms of his study permit. He never enrolled in any course after 2018. The RPD stated that this long delay in applying for refugee protection strongly contradicted his claim that he feared persecution from the moment he arrived in Canada.

Appeal body found no credible evidence of persecution

After his claim was rejected by the RPD, Gagandeep appealed to the Federal Court. The RPD had informed him that it would examine whether he had a safe internal flight alternative in Mumbai or New Delhi and whether Indian authorities could protect him. However, neither he nor his lawyer submitted any arguments in response. The Federal Court referred to this lack of participation as essentially fatal to his appeal.

For the purpose of fair assessment, the appeal body said it would assume that Gagandeep was telling the truth about being homosexual and also accepted the possibility that he was a genuine pro-Khalistan supporter while in Canada. Even then, the appeal body concluded that DS’s family and the Punjab Police did not have the capability or motivation to chase him across large metropolitan cities like Mumbai and New Delhi.

The appeal body added that there was no evidence of his name being entered into any national police or security database, no warrants, and no summons issued against him. There was also no indication that airport authorities would identify him as a security threat.

The tribunal relied on existing country information showing that same-sex couples experience greater acceptance in big Indian cities such as Mumbai, where LGBTQ organisations have been active for many years. It also pointed out that large Sikh communities live in cities like Mumbai and New Delhi, making relocation a reasonable and safe option for him.

Federal Court backs tribunal, flags weak asylum strategy

In its final decision on 20th November, Justice Gascon held that Gagandeep’s legal challenge did not meet the standard set out in the Supreme Court’s Vavilov framework. The court noted that he had failed to make necessary submissions regarding the internal flight option when asked, and he was not allowed to introduce new evidence later, including media reports or police statements.

The court stated that the reasoning of the Refugee Appeal Division was coherent and based firmly on the evidence provided. It also highlighted that Gagandeep had not proved that his supposed persecutors in Punjab had both the means and the clear motivation to pursue him across major Indian cities. He also did not show that relocating would have been unreasonable considering his own personal circumstances. For these reasons, his appeal was rejected.

The infamous ‘Khalistan card’ to seek asylum

In recent years, several reports have revealed that many Sikhs have attempted to use what is often called the ‘Khalistan card’ to obtain asylum in countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. This route has become a shortcut for some people seeking citizenship, especially since regular immigration processes can take many years and offer no certainty. Even individuals without any real association with the Khalistan movement sometimes claim they fear persecution in India for allegedly supporting separatism.

A recent example from September involved Harjit Kaur, a 73-year-old woman who was deported to India after living undocumented in the United States for nearly three decades. Although mainstream media portrayed her story as a tragedy, records showed that she had tried to use the Khalistan card when she arrived in the US with her two sons in the 1990s.

Harjit Kaur and her sons made an asylum claim soon after arriving in America. She fought the case for almost ten years, but by 2005, her options ran out when a US court ordered her deportation. In 2012, another round of appeals was rejected, and she became liable for removal after illegally living in the country for around twenty years. It took American authorities another thirteen years to finally deport her at the age of 73. Her case highlights how asylum rules are often manipulated and how such claims place a long-term burden on host countries.

Another case surfaced in August after a deadly crash in Florida. The accused, Harjinder Singh, was identified as an illegal immigrant who had entered the US using the dunky route. He reportedly made an illegal U-turn on the Florida Turnpike, leading to an accident that killed several passengers. Harjinder fled the scene but was caught later. Although no public documents confirmed an asylum application, he had reportedly claimed that he might face persecution if deported to India. His TikTok activity also showed links to Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), and this connection was first spotted by an independent journalist known as “OnTheNewsBeat” on social media.

Across the years, tens of thousands of Punjabi youths have used similar tactics, often claiming fear of religious or political persecution despite having no actual ties to separatist causes. Former Sangrur MP Simranjit Singh Mann once openly stated that he had issued nearly 50,000 letters supporting such asylum claims in exchange for payment. These letters falsely suggested that applicants faced possible persecution for being Khalistan sympathisers, turning asylum into an easy tool to bypass legal immigration pathways.

These fabricated asylum petitions not only harm the credibility of genuine applicants but also affect India’s international reputation. When false stories are used to exploit foreign legal systems, they strain host countries, strengthen unlawful networks that profit from immigration fraud, and overshadow real victims who truly need protection.