Date: 20050512
Docket: IMM-5129-04
Citation: 2005 FC 684
Ottawa, Ontario, this 12th day of May, 2005
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
SURESH SUBRAMANIAM
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Suresh Subramaniam claimed refugee protection in Canada based on his allegation that he was forced to work for both the Sri Lankan Army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). He also maintained that he had been arrested and detained by the army three times, and that the LTTE had extorted money from him. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board disbelieved Mr. Subramaniam's account of events and dismissed his refugee claim. Mr. Subramaniam argues that the Board erred in its definition of "refugee" and asks me to order a new hearing.
[2] I cannot find an error on the Board's part and, therefore, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
Did the Board apply the wrong definition of "refugee"?
II. Analysis
[3] After finding that Mr. Subramaniam's testimony contained numerous inconsistencies, discrepancies and omissions, the Board concluded that the only facts that had been proved were that Mr. Subramaniam was a 38-year-old Tamil barber from the north of Sri Lanka who feared returning to his home country because of the possibility of civil war. The Board stated:
While the claimant fits the general profile of those at risk in Sri Lanka today, not all Tamil males will automatically be granted protection as refugees. The claimant must establish his claim on the facts surrounding his claim, and he must establish he has either a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to his life. The credibility concerns raised by this claim overshadow his profile. I note as well that his wife and children remain in Jaffna, apparently without problems. The claimant is therefore not a Convention refugee.
[4] Mr. Subramaniam argues that the Board's conclusion was inconsistent. On the one hand, the Board found that he is a member of a group that is at risk. On the other hand, it held that he is not a Convention refugee. Mr. Subramaniam cites in his favour the case of Salibian v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 250 (C.A.) (QL), in which the Federal Court of Appeal held that a person could successfully claim refugee protection in the following circumstances (among others):
· the applicant can show that the fear he had resulted not from reprehensible acts committed or likely to be committed directly against him but from reprehensible acts committed or likely to be committed against members of a group to which he belonged;
· a situation of civil war in a given country is not an obstacle to a claim provided the fear felt is not that felt indiscriminately by all citizens as consequence of the civil war, but that felt by the applicant himself, by a group with which he is associated, or, even, by all citizens on account of a risk of persecution based on one of the reasons stated in the definition. (At para.17.)
[5] Mr. Subramaniam argues that he comes within both of these categories and, therefore, that the Board erred in finding that he was not a Convention refugee.
[6] I disagree. The Board found that Mr. Subramaniam was a member of a group that is "at risk" in Sri Lanka. It did not find that he was a member of a group that would likely be the object of reprehensible acts. In other words, it did not find that Tamil males as a group faced a serious chance of persecution. Further, the Board found that Mr. Subramaniam's fear of war was general, not personal or connected specifically with the group of which he was a member. Accordingly, I see no inconsistency between the Board's finding that Mr. Subramaniam was part of a group that was at risk and its conclusion that he had not met the test of a Convention refugee.
[7] Mr. Subramaniam's status as a Tamil male from the north of Sri Lanka is simply not enough, on its own, to establish a well-founded fear or persecution: Tharmalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 727, [2003] F.C.J. No. 943 (T.D.) (QL), at paras. 4-5.
[8] Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5129-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: SURESH SUBRAMANIAM v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ON
DATE OF HEARING: May 10, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: May 12, 2005
APPEARANCES BY:
Ms. Maureen Silcoff FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Margherita Braccio FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MAUREEN SILCOFF FOR THE APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, ON
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, ON FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content