Date: 19980115
Docket: IMM-1231-97
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH CLAUDE PONNIAH
ALBERTA SHIRANIE PONNIAH
JAGATH CLAUDE LASHNTHA ALVIS
MINOLI INOKA ALVIS
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D.J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated March 3, 1997. By that decision the Board decided that the applicants were not Convention refugees.
FACTS
[2] The applicants are husband, wife and two minor children. They are citizens of Sri Lanka. They arrived in Canada on February 11, 1996. Their claim to Convention refugee status is based on political opinion and membership in a particular social group.
[3] The husband (the principal applicant) was born in Colombo, Sri Lanka. His father was a Tamil and his mother is a Sinhalese. He is a lawyer in Sri Lanka and is also qualified as a solicitor in England. He was appointed Project Director, Human Rights Task Force (H.R.T.F.) for Sri Lanka in 1992. He remained in that position until March 1, 1996, when he resigned. At the time of his appointment the United National Party was in power in Sri Lanka. After the present government assumed office, his relationship with the board of the H.R.T.F. deteriorated. He no longer felt that the government would protect him during his employment with the H.R.T.F. In January 1996, he was sponsored for a program in the USA. This program ran from January 15 to February 10, 1996. The applicants obtained visas to enter Canada on the understanding that they would visit the principal applicant's sister and would then return to the USA before leaving for Sri Lanka. They entered Canada on these visas on February 11, 1996.
[4] During his absence from Sri Lanka, the principal applicant was advised by a person at the H.R.T.F. not to return to Sri Lanka because there was a new director who was publicly suggesting that the principal applicant was a Tamil. The principal applicant believed that his life would be in danger if he returned to Sri Lanka at the hands of those individuals whom he had investigated at an earlier time.
THE BOARD'S DECISION
[5] The Board did not agree that the principal applicant would face danger if he were to return to Sri Lanka. Many people in Sri Lanka knew of his mixed background. He had signed a statutory declaration prior to his departure from Sri Lanka in which he stated that his circumstances in Sri Lanka were stable and that he had no reason to seek asylum in Canada. He also testified that if he returned to Sri Lanka, he would have been able to resume his position with the H.R.T.F. On this basis the Board concluded that the applicants had no grounds for fearing persecution upon their return.
ISSUES
1. Did the Board commit reviewable error by ignoring evidence when it concluded that the applicants refugee claims were unfounded?
2. Did the Board err in failing to recognize that the applicant was advancing a refugee claim sur place?
ANALYSIS
1. Ignoring Evidence
[6] The principal applicant was a high-profile human rights activist and lawyer. While he was still living in Sri Lanka, he felt secure because of his high profile position. However, after leaving, he learned that his support on the Board had eroded and he would no longer be protected by the government. The Board, at page 6 of its reasons found no justification for the principal applicant's fear of persecution. The Board reasoned that since he had not been fearful for his life during the course of employment, nothing had happened since to cause him to fear persecution . In my view, such a conclusion was reasonably open to the Board on the evidence before it.
2. Refugee Claim Sur Place
[7] A person becomes a refugee sur place due to circumstances arising in his country of origin during his absence. The principal applicant stated that the Director of Administration had been spreading rumours that he was sympathetic to the Tamil liberation movement. Accordingly, he submits that the Board erred in failing to recognize the nature of his claim as being a claim sur place in view of the change of circumstances arising in his country of origin.
[8] I am unable to accept this submission. The Board examined the principal applicant's situation before he left Sri Lanka and relied on his statutory declaration that he did not fear persecution before he came to Canada. The Board then examined his evidence concerning what occurred after he left. They concluded that since others knew that he was of Tamil origin, there was no cause for him to be fearful upon his return. The Board also noted his evidence that he would be able to resume his job as Project Director upon his return to Sri Lanka. On this basis, the Board concluded that there was no justification for the principal applicant's fear. It is apparent that the Board had due regard for the principal applicant's change of circumstances after he left Sri Lanka.
CONCLUSION
[9] Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the within application for judicial review is dismissed.
CERTIFICATION
[10] Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree that this is not a case for certification.
"Darrel V.Heald"
D.J.
Toronto, Ontario
January 15, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-1231-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSEPH CLAUDE PONNIAH ET AL.
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 14, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: JANUARY 15, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Michael F. Battista
For the Applicants
Mr. Stephen Gold
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Wiseman, Gordon D.
205-1033 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5S 3A5
For the Applicants
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-1231-97
Between:
JOSEPH CLAUDE PONNIAH ET AL.
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content