Date: 20080728
Docket: IMM-2796-07
Citation: 2008 FC 921
Ottawa, Ontario, July 28, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
MOHAMED
FAZIL MOHIDEEN OSMAN
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mohamed
Fazil Mohideen Osman (the Applicant) seeks Judicial Review pursuant to
subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C.
2001, c. 27 (the Act) of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the
Board), Refugee Protection Division dated June 26, 2007 wherein, based on
negative credibility findings, it determined the Applicant not to be a
Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection (the Decision).
BACKGROUND
[2]
The
Applicant was born in Sri Lanka in August 1986 and grew
up in Colombo. He attended
St. Petersburg State Agrarian University in Russia in
2004 and, in March 2005, he returned to Colombo after
completing an advanced diploma in business management.
[3]
The
Applicant’s evidence was that prior to March 2005, he and his parents never had
any difficulties with the police or the army in Sri Lanka. At that
time, the security situation in Colombo was relatively calm.
[4]
The
Applicant alleged that in March 2005 his parents, who are Tamil speaking Muslims,
rented a portion of their house at an attractive above-market rent to a Tamil
couple from Northern
Sri Lanka
(the Tenants). They had employed a broker to find them rental accommodation.
[5]
Shortly
thereafter in May 2005, the police arrested the Tenants and warned the
Applicant’s father that if he had Tamil tenants, he would have problems with
the police. The Tenants were released a day later after being beaten and forced
to pay bribes. However, the Applicant’s father did not heed the police and continued
to rent to the Tenants.
[6]
There
was no further difficulty until August 2005 when the Foreign Minister of Sri
Lanka was assassinated. The Applicant said that, in response to that event,
police and army personnel searched the Applicant’s home on August 20, 2005. The
police arrested the Tenants, the Applicant and his father.
[7]
The
Applicant testified that he and his father were beaten but were released after
the Applicant’s mother paid a bribe of 100,000 Sri Lankan rupees (approximately
$1,200 Canadian).
[8]
The
Applicant’s father, on the advice of the police, asked the Tenants to move out
by the end of August, which they did.
[9]
In
mid-September 2005, police and army personnel again searched the Applicant’s
home demanding to know the whereabouts of the Tenants. At that time, he and his
father were arrested and detained for about six months (the Detention). The
Applicant said that he was beaten about six times during this period and that
the authorities tried to make him sign a blank statement. On one occasion, he
was hung upside down, tied by his ankles and beaten. During the detention, the
Applicant’s asthma became worse because he was not receiving his regular
treatments.
[10]
The
Applicant’s mother unsuccessfully offered bribes on a number of occasions and
retained legal counsel.
[11]
The
Applicant and his father were finally released in March 2006 after the
Applicant’s mother paid a bribe of 500,000 Sri Lankan rupees (approximately
$5,676 Canadian). The Applicant and his father were photographed and
finger-printed.
[12]
In
April 2006, the Applicant’s father complained to higher-ranking police
authorities about the Detention and abuse. Thereafter, in late April 2006, a
white van without licence plates arrived at the Applicant’s home. A group of
unknown men arrived, blindfolded the Applicant’s father and took him away. He
has not been seen since then (the Disappearance).
[13]
In
May 2006, the Applicant began making arrangements to flee Sri Lanka. He hired an
agent who helped him obtain a student visa for Canada using false
documents.
[14]
On
September 18, 2006, the Applicant was issued the visa and on September 23,
2006, he arrived in Canada and claimed refugee status.
THE DECISION
[15]
The
Board accepted that the Applicant was a national of Sri Lanka but decided
that he was not credible. It drew adverse inferences from the fact that he did
not have corroborating documentary evidence which demonstrated that his parents
had in fact been renting part of their house to the Tenants. The Applicant
explained that there had been no lease and that the rent had been paid in cash
but the Board felt that these facts did not preclude corroborating evidence.
[16]
The
Board concluded that because the Applicant had spent nearly five months
preparing to leave the country and because he had retained an agent to help
him, he should have been able to produce additional documents to prove the existence
of the Tenants.
[17]
Moreover,
the Board found it implausible that the Applicant’s parents would rent part of
their home to a Tamil couple from Northern Sri Lanka given the security
situation and the risk of reprisals.
[18]
The
Board also drew adverse inferences from the fact that the supporting documents
provided by the Applicant, which the Applicant’s mother had obtained from
friends of the family in positions of authority, did not mention the Detention
or the Disappearance.
[19]
At
the Port of Entry, the Applicant stated that his family occupied the ground and
first floors of the house. However, at the hearing, he testified that his
family occupied only the ground floor. The Applicant acknowledged this
inconsistency at the hearing and explained that it was due to the fact that he
had been tired.
[20]
Finally,
the Board found that the Applicant’s fear of returning to Sri Lanka was not
warranted. It said:
I find that if he were to return to Sri Lanka, it would not be the first
time the [Applicant] has left the country and returned to Sri Lanka, since,
according to the [Applicant], he went to Russia in January 2004, and returned to Sri Lanka in March 2005. According to
the [Applicant] upon return to Sri
Lanka, he did
not have any problems. His only alleged problem is the alleged renting to Tamil
couple by his parents.
DOCUMENTS
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
[21]
The
Applicant submitted the following five letters (collectively, the Letters) in
support of his claim. They were all obtained by his mother for the purpose of
supporting his refugee claim.
[22]
The
first, dated March 12, 2007, is from Pearl Hospital (the Doctor’s
Letter). It does not mention that the Applicant’s treatment lapse was due to
his Detention. It reads:
This is to certify that Mr. Mohideen
Osman Mohamed Faazil of No. 107 Dawalasingarama Mawatha, Colombo 15, has been treated here
every month for bronchial asthma from his young age. He has not obtained
treatment from Sept. 2005 to March 2006. When he came for treatment after that,
he was weak and was suffering from frequent attacks of wheezing. He was treated
for this condition from April 2006.
[23]
The
second letter (the JP’s Letter), also dated March 12, 2007, is from N.R.
Liyanage, a Justice of the Peace (all Island). He had known the
Applicant’s father for many years, yet he didn’t mention the Disappearance or
the fact that the Tenants had been arrested twice and were under continuing
suspicion. The JP’s Letter reads:
This is to certify that Mr. Mohideen
OsmanMohamed Faazil holder of National Identity Card bearing No. 862341880 V is
well known to me for a considerable period and is a permanent resident of No.
107 Dhawalasingarama Mawatha, Colombo 15.
Mr. & Mrs. Sivakumar were lived at
the Upper Floor of the above house and Mr. Mohideen Osmand Mohamed Faazil has
faced many problems due to the occupation of the above Mr. & Mrs Sivakumar.
[24]
The
third letter, also dated March 12, 2007, is from a Grama Seva Officer and
certifies that the Applicant was a permanent resident at the Colombo address
described in the other letters.
[25]
The
fourth letter, dated March 12, 207, is from Deputy Mayor of the Colombo Municipal
Council (the Deputy Mayor’s Letter). Although he was also a long-time friend of
the Applicant’s father, the letter is silent about the Disappearance and says
nothing about the Tenants. It reads:
This is to certify that bearer Mr.
Mohideen Osman Mohamed Mohamed Faazil (ID No 862341880) of No 107, Dawalasingharama Road, Colombo 15 is known to be
for a considerable period of time.
He comes from a respectable family as
bears a good moral character. He is honest trustworthy and hard working person.
I have great pleasure to recommended him
to any who require his services.
I wish him all success.
[26]
The
fifth letter is undated but was written after the Applicant arrived in Canada because it shows
his Canadian address. Its author is P. Selvarajah, Attorney-at-Law and Notary
Public. He identifies the Applicant as his client and states that the Applicant
was arrested on September 16, 2005 and was detained and beaten until March 22,
2006. The letter mentions the Disappearance but not the Tenants (the Lawyer’s
Letter).
THE ISSUES
[27]
The
issues are:
1.
Did
the Board err in requiring corroborative evidence of the existence of the
Tenants?
2.
Did
the Board err in concluding that the JP’s and Deputy Mayor’s Letters had no
probative value?
3.
Did
the Board err in drawing an adverse inference from the material omissions in
the Letters?
4.
Did
the Board err in concluding that the Applicant gave inconsistent evidence about
the occupation of his family home?
STANDARD OF
REVIEW
[28]
Issues
1, 2 and 4 relate to how much evidence is needed and the weighing of that
evidence. As such, they are questions of mixed fact and law for which the
standard of review is reasonableness simpliciter. Issue 3 is a question about
what findings can be drawn from an absence of facts and is hence a question of
law alone. However, as the Board has expertise on drawing such findings, this
issue meets the criteria set out in paragraph 55 of Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9 for a standard of review of reasonableness simpliciter.
DISCUSSION
Issue
1 Existence of the Tenants
[29]
The
Applicant’s entire claim depended on the existence of the Tenants. For this
reason and because he gave inconsistent evidence about what floors of the
family home were occupied and by whom, it was open to the Board to look for
evidence confirming the Tenants lived in the house. In my view, it was incumbent
on the Applicant to explore every reasonable means of obtaining independent
verification that the Tenants lived in his family home. The Applicant made no
such efforts. He simply said that there was no written lease. He could have
attempted through his mother to produce, for example, documents showing rent
was paid, letters from neighbours or friends who visited the house and had seen
the Tenants or a letter from the broker who accompanied the Tenants to the
house and arrange their tenancy, to name just a few possibilities.
Issue
2 The JP’s and Deputy Mayor’s Letters
[30]
The
Applicant says that the JP’s Letter should have been treated as corroboration
of the Tenants’ existence. However, since the JP did not indicate that he had
any first hand knowledge of their presence, it is my view that it was open to
the Board to assign no weight to his letter as it related to the Tenants. The
situation would have been very different if the JP had said, for example, that
he was dining at the Applicant’s home, saw the Tenants arrive and go upstairs
for the evening.
[31]
The
Deputy Mayor’s Letter on its face corroborates none of the Applicant’s story
other than his address (which is not in dispute). Regardless of what weight is
put on that letter, it is not probative in terms of the existence of the
Tenants or the Detention and Disappearance.
Issue
3 The Failure to Mention the Detention or Disappearance
[32]
The
Applicant says that, even though both the JP and Deputy Mayor were his father’s
long-time friends, the Board erred when it inferred that because they did not
mention his Detention and Disappearance, these events had not in fact occurred.
The Applicant testified that the omissions, in the case of the Deputy Mayor,
were explained by the fact that he was also a Tamil and feared repercussions.
[33]
However,
the Applicant did not testify that the JP, who was Sinhalese, had any such
concerns.
[34]
The
Board also found it implausible that the Doctor’s Letter did not explain that
the Applicant’s asthma treatment had lapsed because of the Detention. Since the
hospital had treated him since he was young, it was probable in the Board’s
view that the doctor would have asked why his condition had deteriorated and
would have included the explanation in the Doctor’s Letter. It is important to
recall that the Doctor’s Letter was written at the request of the Applicant’s
mother to support the Applicant’s refugee claim. There was no suggestion that
the hospital or the doctor would have faced reprisals if they mentioned the
Detention.
[35]
The
Applicant relied on Mr. Justice James Russell’s decision in Mui v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1020, 31 Imm. L.R. (3d) 91. The
Board reached a negative conclusion about the applicant’s credibility because
her mother and her husband’s mother, who were friends and played an important
part in her marriage, had not been called as witnesses. However, the Court
concluded at paragraph 35 of the decision that adverse credibility findings
cannot be based on a lack of evidence.
[36]
In
so concluding, Russell J. relied on a decision made by Mr. Justice Douglas
Campbell in the case of Mahmud v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) (1999), 167 F.T.R. 309. In that case, the issue was not a
complete absence of evidence as in Mui but rather a situation
like that in the present in which letters submitted by the Applicant
contradicted his evidence not because of what they said but because of what
they omitted. In deciding Mahmud, Justice Campbell relied on Maldonado
v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.) and Ahortor v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) (1993), 65 F.T.R. 137 (T.D.).
[37]
However,
in my view, the decisions in Maldonado and Ahortor were not exactly
on point. Maldonado stands for the proposition that an applicant’s
allegations are presumed true unless there are reasons to doubt their
truthfulness and, in Ahortor, Justice Max Teitelbaum held that a failure
to produce corroborating documents cannot support a finding that an applicant
lacks credibility without having regard to the evidence about why such evidence
is not available.
[38]
In
this case, the Applicant offered only a limited explanation about why only one
of the Letters made no mention of the Detention or Disappearance. No
explanation was offered about the other four letters’ failure to mention the
Detention or the Disappearance.
[39]
In
my view, where there is no reasonable explanation for such material omissions,
they can be the basis of an adverse inference and impugn an applicant’s
credibility. Given the facts, the Board was entitled to conclude that the
corroborating evidence was deficient and that, without it, the Applicant was
not credible.
Issue
4 The Inconsistent Testimony about the Family Home
[40]
The
Applicant had initially claimed at the Port of Entry that his family “occupied the
ground and first floor” and that the Tenants occupied the second floor.
However, at the hearing, he testified that his family only occupied the ground
floor, the Tenants occupied the first floor and that the second floor was
vacant.
[41]
The
Applicant argues the inconsistency was actually a misunderstanding between
floors. The ground floor was the first level, the first floor was the second
level and the second floor was the third level of a three story home. The
Applicant says that he consistently stated that the Tenants lived on the floor
above his family.
[42]
The
problem is not an inconsistency about which the floor the Tenants occupied but an
inconsistency about where the Applicant’s family lived. The Applicant clearly
stated at the Port of Entry that his family occupied two floors of the house.
At the hearing, the Applicant testified that his family only occupied one
floor.
[43]
The
Board considered the Applicant’s explanation for this inconsistency and
rejected it. It was open to the Board to conclude that being tired did not
explain why the Applicant could not correctly provide the basic fact of where
he and his family lived. As such, it was entitled to draw an adverse inference
to the Applicant’s credibility.
JUDGMENT
UPON reviewing the material filed and hearing the
submissions of counsel for both parties in Toronto on Tuesday, February
26, 2008;
AND UPON being advised
that no questions are posed for certification;
NOW THEREFORE
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that for the reasons given
above the Application is dismissed.
Email this Content