Date: 20040227
Docket: IMM-141-03
Citation: 2004 FC 336
BETWEEN:
THALAYSUTHAN VIVEKANANDAN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUTFY C.J.
[1] The Refugee Protection Division determined that the applicant, a 31-year old Tamil medical doctor and a citizen of Sri Lanka, was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The applicant now seeks judicial review of that negative decision.
[2] The applicant received his early education in Colombo and Jaffna. In 1993, he travelled to India to begin a Bachelor of Science program. Between late 1993 and June 2000, he pursued his medical studies in Moscow, with two terms as an elective student in London, England. In June 2000, he graduated with a degree in medicine.
[3] In July 2000, the applicant returned to Sri Lanka where he worked as an intern at a government hospital in Colombo.
[4] In late October 2000, the applicant left Sri Lanka to continue his post-graduate medical studies in New York.
[5] In June 2001, after two earlier short trips to visit family in Canada, the applicant entered this country with a visitor's visa. In July 2001, he made his claim for refugee status.
[6] The applicant's refugee claim is based principally on two incidents, one in 1988 and the second in 2000.
[7] In December 1988, according to the applicant, he and his brother were arrested in Colombo and detained for three days. He claims to have been assaulted and tortured. In 1989, his brother apparently obtained refugee status in the United Kingdom.
[8] According to the applicant's personal information form, "[a]fter my arrest my parents sent me to India ...". As noted earlier, the applicant travelled to India in 1993 to pursue his studies, some four years after his alleged arrest and detention in Colombo.
[9] Upon review of the record, I am satisfied that it was open to the Refugee Protection Division to question the veracity of this allegation and, in any event, to conclude that the applicant was sent to India by his family in 1993 to pursue his studies and not as the result of the 1988 incident.
[10] The applicant was not questioned extensively on his trip to India by either his own counsel or the tribunal member. The applicant claims that the tribunal breached procedural fairness by not questioning him concerning the four-year period between the alleged persecutory incident and his decision to leave Sri Lanka for India. I do not agree. This gap was apparent in the applicant's personal information form. In my view, the burden was on the applicant to explain this obvious discrepancy.
[11] The second incident is said to have occurred in August 2000 when the applicant was working as an intern in a government hospital in Colombo. He alleges to have been arrested after treating two wounded Tamils. He was released upon his undertaking to cease working at the hospital. In fact, according to his own version, the applicant was not forced to leave the hospital until September 12, 2000. In my view, it was once again open to the tribunal to disbelieve the applicant concerning this incident for not having satisfactorily explained how he managed to work at the hospital for the additional period subsequent to his arrest.
[12] As noted in the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, the applicant did not explain his failure to seek refugee status during his three trips to the United Kingdom, while he was in the United States or when he was earlier in Canada. The applicant did not pursue his challenge of these tribunal comments in his oral presentation in this Court.
[13] In short, the applicant has not established any reviewable error in the decision of the Refugee Protection Division. Accordingly, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither counsel suggested a serious question for certification and none will be certified.
"Allan Lutfy"
C.J.
Ottawa, Ontario
February 27, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-141-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Thalaysuthan Vivekanandan Applicant
v.
The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 25, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER : LUTFY C.J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Krassina Kostadinov FOR PLAINTIFF / APPLICANT
Jamie Todd FOR DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Krassina Kostadinov FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
Waldman and Associates
281 Eglinton Ave. East
Toronto, M4P 1L3
Morris Rosenberg FOR DEFENDANT/
Department of Justice RESPONDENT
The Exchange Tower
Suite 3400, Box 36
2 First Canadian Place
Toronto, M5X 1K6
Email this Content