Date: 19980116
Docket: IMM-919-97
BETWEEN:
ANANTHIVIJAYAKUMARI SIVAGNANAM
MAYURAN SIVAGNANAM
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). By that decision the Board concluded that the applicants herein are not Convention refugees.
FACTS
[2] The principal applicant and her son Mayuran Sivagnanam are both citizens of Sri Lanka. Her claim to refugee status was based on membership in a particular social group, namely Tamils from Jaffna. The principal applicant was born in Colombo and moved to Jaffna in 1985. After some threats and other difficulties with the LTTE, they travelled to Colombo. On February 1, 1996, the applicants were separated from their husband/father at the Colombo police station. There, they were detained and questioned. The husband was released on the third day upon payment of a bribe. The family left Sri Lanka on March 5, 1996. The husband remained in Singapore. These applicants fear that they will be imprisoned and tortured by police in Colombo until the husband is found.
THE REASONS OF THE BOARD
[3] The Board decided that the fears of the principal applicant are not well founded. After noting that both applicants are Colombo Tamils, having been born there, it concluded that there was no indication that the applicants would be treated any worse than they were in 1996. The Board reasoned that because the applicants had been imprisoned in 1996 and released, it was unlikely that they would encounter any serious problems with the police at this juncture. Finally, the Board concluded that it would not be unreasonable for the applicants to seek protection in Colombo.
ISSUES
1. Did the Board err by basing its decision on erroneous findings of fact?
2. Did the Board err when it concluded that the applicants had an IFA in Colombo?
ANALYSIS
1. Erroneous Findings of Fact
[4] The applicants submit that the Board erred in stating that the husband was released without conditions. The husband was required to report to the police if and when so ordered. However, the fact remains that the authorities appeared to have lost interest in the husband. Accordingly, a technical error of this nature is of little consequence. These applicants and the husband spent a month together after the husband's release without police intervention. Hence, the Board's finding that the applicants would not reasonably fear incarceration again was reasonable on this record.
[5] Similarly, the Board's finding that the principal applicant did not fit the profile of young Tamils from the north, was also reasonable. The Board observed that the applicants were Colombo Tamils since both applicants were born in Colombo and the principal applicant had lived there for 30 years.
[6] The final submission of the applicants on this issue was that the Board did not pay due regard to the persecution that the minor applicant might face. I do not agree. The evidence was that the minor applicant was accused of being a Tiger. However, the evidence was also to the effect that he was not questioned and was immediately released by the police. On this basis, I conclude that the Board's conclusion was reasonably open to it.
2. Internal Flight Alternative
[7] The principal applicant said that the person who assisted her husband in obtaining release would not be able to assist her if she returned to Colombo. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that since there was a large Tamil community in Colombo, and since she had lived there for 32 years it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicants would not suffer persecution if they were to return to Colombo.
[8] I conclude that in these circumstances, and on this record the Board's finding that Colombo represented an IFA was a reasonable decision for it to make.
CONCLUSION
[9] For the foregoing reasons, I have been unable to find reviewable error on this record. The within application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed1.
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 16, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-919-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANANTHIVIJAYAKUMARI SIVAGNANAM
ET AL.
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 15, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: JANUARY 16, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Lorne Waldman
For the Applicants
Mr. Kevin Lunney
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lorne Waldman
182 Eglinton Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1L3
For the Applicants
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-919-97
Between:
ANANTHIVIJAYAKUMARI SIVAGNANAM ET AL.
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 Counsel for the applicant submitted that the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Amayo v. Minister of Employment and Immigration [1982] 1 F.C. 520 is supportive of the applicants' claims. I do not agree. The facts in Amayo are much more supportive of a refugee claim than in the case at bar.
Email this Content