Date: 19990910
Docket: IMM-2013-98
BETWEEN:
THANGAVELU SUPPIAH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board rendered orally February 19, 1998, with written reasons signed March 12, 1998, whereby the applicant"s claim for refugee status was denied.
FACTS
[2] The applicant is a 42 year old Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka. The applicant alleges a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan government and its agents, the police and the military on the grounds of race, political opinion and membership in a particular social group.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[3] The Board found the applicant not to be a credible witness. In addition, the Board found that the applicant had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Colombo.
ISSUES
| a) Is the decision rendered by the Board a valid decision in law having regard to the requirements of paragraph 69.1(11)(a) of the Act? |
| b) Did the Board err in finding that extortion did not constitute persecution? |
| c) Did the Board show evidence of zeal? |
APPLICANT"S ARGUMENTS
[4] The applicant suggests that the tribunal has ignored the more recent evidence of the situation in Bengladesh particularly concerning Tamils being detained and tortured in Colombo.
[5] The applicant suggests that it demonstrates that there is no internal flight alternative (IFA).
[6] The applicant suggests that the Board committed a reviewable error in concluding as it did.
[7] The applicant also submits that the Board erred in finding that arbitrary detention is not harm and that bribery was not extortion, and failed to properly consider whether the extortion constituted persecution.
[8] The applicant also argues that the Board showed zeal in its microscopic consideration of the evidence. The applicant submits that there was no inconsistency upon which to find the applicant not credible.
RESPONDENT"S ARGUMENTS
[9] The respondent submits that on the first point relating to subsection 69.1(11)(a) of the Act, the applicant referred to the section of the Immigration Act as written before being amended in 1992 and that the Federal Court has already decided that it was no longer an issue.
[10] On the issue of credibility findings, counsel for the respondent suggests that the applicant has not challenged those credibility findings even in the record nor in the representations this morning.
[11] The respondent suggests that it was reasonable, with the evidence submitted, to conclude that the applicant was not credible.
[12] On the third issue that is the internal flight alternative, the respondent suggests that the applicant has spent almost all his life in Colombo and was not targeted by the authorities as the young Tamils coming from the North and recently arrived in Colombo are, most of the time, targeted by the authorities and suffer harassment.
ANALYSIS
[13] As it was mentioned by counsel for the respondent, subsection 69.1(11)(a) was amended in 1992.
[14] I totally agree with Justice Wetston in his judgment in Isiaku v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)1 when he says:
...the Board is no longer required to deliver written reasons simultaneously with their oral decisions. The Board can provide written reasons after a decision has been made, by providing them in conjunction with the written notice of the decision. While the practice of providing oral reasons may lead to some difficulties where differences arise between the oral reasons and written reasons, these problems can be addressed on a case-by-case basis, as in: Vaszilyova, supra.
Vaszilyova v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (IMM-3321-93) 4 July 1994, (F.C.T.D.)
[15] Justice Evans also said:
First, I agree with the analysis of Wetston J. in Isiaku v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (F.C.T.D.; IMM-1022-64-97; June 18, 1998), where he held that the requirement that the Refugee division shall, with the written notice of the decision, give written reasons with the decision is satisfied if the written reasons sent with the notice of the decision include the decision itself.
Second, any lingering ambiguity in the meaning of paragraph 69(1)(11)(a) is clarified by reference to the French text which simply provides that "la transmission des motifs se fait avec sa notification". This makes it clear that the reasons have to be sent with the notice of the decision, and does not preclude the possibility that the decision may already have been rendered orally.2
[16] Concerning the extortion as persecution issue, in my opinion, the Board dealt adequately with regard to the applicant"s particular circumstances. The Board also did look into the "motivation" for the extortion, that is, to hasten the release of his fellow Tamils.
[17] In my opinion, the Board conducted a proper analysis of the first prong of the IFA test, that is, whether the applicant would be subjected to persecution if he were to return to Sri Lanka. The Board determined that the payment of bribes was not so widespread as to be systematic and that remedies were available for those who were harassed for extortion purposes.
[18] The respondent also referred to the evidence that the applicant was released after detention unconditionally without having to pay bribes.
[19] The applicant failed to convince the Court that the way the panel has considered the evidence was wrong.
[20] In my opinion, the applicant has not convinced me that the Board has committed any reviewable error.
[21] For those reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[22] No serious question will be certified.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 10, 1999
__________________
1 150 F.T.R. 143 at 146 and 147.
2 Abdul Hamud Mo Hamed Badurdeen c. MCI, 1999, IMM-1312-98.
Email this Content