Date: 20050216
Docket: IMM-2443-04
Citation: 2005 FC 245
Toronto, Ontario, February 16th, 2005
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
BETWEEN:
DEVUNDARAGE, SHIROMI PRIYADARSHINI
KURUPPU MUDIYANSELAG, NIPUNI THAKSHARA
KURUPPU MUDIYANSELAO, PAVANI LAKMALI
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) dated February 25, 2004 in which the applicants were found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
[2] The principal applicant (applicant) is a 23 year-old Sinhalese citizen of Sri Lanka who fears that she will be subject to extortion attempts if returned to her country. The applicant has two young daughters, aged seven and four, whose claims for refugee status are dependent on the success of their mother's claim.
[3] The applicant's parents and her brother are permanent residents of Canada. The applicant chose to stay in Sri Lanka to complete high school and became ineligible to be sponsored once she married in June 1997. She alleges that commencing in 1996, masked persons would arrive at her house in the middle of the night, demand money and threaten to kidnap her or her daughters. These persons stated that they knew she and her family were wealthy because she had relatives living in Canada.
[4] The applicant claims that these incidents of extortion occurred approximately 13 times over a six year period. Despite the fact that she moved homes several times and lived in various villages, the extortionists were always able to locate her. She did not contact the police because they are corrupt and because the extortionists warned her not to. The applicant alleges that her husband has continued to receive extortion threats in Sri Lanka and that he is in hiding. At the hearing, she submitted two letters from her husband in support of this allegation.
[5] The family has never paid the extortionists and no one has ever been harmed.
[6] The applicant and her children came to Canada in June 2001 as visitors to attend her brother's wedding. They submitted a request for refugee protection in January 2002.
THE DECISION
[7] The Board rejected the applicant's claim for protection on the basis that she lacked credibility. It noted inconsistencies and implausibilities in her evidence which led the Board to conclude that she had fabricated her story to bolster the refugee claim. For example, the applicant testified that the extortionists came at night wearing masks, but later in her testimony stated that they came disguised as sales people. When this inconsistency was brought to the attention of the applicant, she was unable to provide a persuasive explanation to the Board. The applicant also stated that she had no family to return to in Sri Lanka except her elderly grandmother, when in actuality she had a number of relatives still living there, including her husband.
[8] Moreover, the Board found the applicant's testimony regarding her husband to be suspect. The applicant testified that she had a good marriage and did not have marital difficulties. However, at the time of the hearing she had not been in contact with her husband for six months and implied that if returned to Sri Lanka she would be perceived as a single mother. She testified that she was not able to contact her husband because he did not have a telephone, yet she stated earlier that he had access to a phone at his brother's factory where he worked.
[9] The Board also reviewed two letters purportedly written by the applicant's husband, which outlined the threats he continued to face in Sri Lanka. The Board accorded no weight to the letters because the applicant was not credible and because anyone could have authored them.
ISSUE
[10] The sole issue is whether the Board committed a reviewable error in according no weight to the two letters from the applicant's husband.
ANALYSIS
[11] The applicant submits that it was not open to the Board to reject these letters on the basis that her testimony was not credible. Rather, the Board was obliged to assess the letters on their own merit and then balance these letters against the concerns it had with her testimony.
[12] In my view, the Board did not commit a reviewable error in its assessment of the two letters and the Court's intervention is not warranted. It was reasonable for the Board, after having concluded that the story recounted by the applicant was untrustworthy and fabricated, to question the veracity of the letters. The letters reiterate the account described by the applicant. Moreover, the letters are not objective pieces of evidence that can be seen as independent proof of the applicant's account. The Board correctly recognized that the letters could have been written by anyone.
[13] As discussed by Justice Nadon (as he then was) in Hamid v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1293 (F.C.T.D.) at paragraph 21:
[I]n my opinion, the applicant's assertion that the Board is bound to analyze the documentary evidence "independently from the applicant's testimony" must be examined in the context of the informal proceedings which prevail before the Board. Once a Board, as the present Board did, comes to the conclusion that an applicant is not credible, in most cases, it will necessarily follow that the Board will not give that applicant's documents much probative value, unless the applicant has been able to prove satisfactorily that the documents in question are truly genuine. In the present case, the Board was not satisfied with the applicant's proof and refused to give the documents at issue any probative value. Put another way, where the Board is of the view, like here, that the applicant is not credible, it will not be sufficient for the applicant to file a document and affirm that it is genuine and that the information contained therein is true. Some form of corroboration or independent proof will be required to "offset" the Board's negative conclusion on credibility.
[14] The Board's reasons for finding that the applicant lacked credibility are supported by the evidence. Not only did the applicant's testimony contain inconsistencies and implausibilities, but she waited six months before claiming refugee protection in Canada. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the Board to discount the two letters submitted by the applicant.
[15] For the foregoing reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[16] Neither party proposed a question for certification and none will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Michael A. Kelen"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-2443-04
STYLE OF CAUSE:
DEVUNDARAGE, SHIROMI PRIYADARSHINI, KURUPPU MUDIYANSELAG, NIPUNI THAKSHARA, KURUPPU MUDIYANSELAO, PAVANI LAKMALI
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 15, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: KELEN J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 16, 2005
APPEARANCES BY:
Ms. Maureen Silcoff
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Ms. Janet Chisholm
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Maureen Silcoff
Barrister & Solicitor
FOR THE APPLICANTS
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content