Date:
20130703
Docket:
IMM-11121-12
Citation:
2013 FC 742
Ottawa, Ontario,
July 3, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington
BETWEEN:
|
|
THAYAPARAN VELUMMAYILUM
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Following
the dismissal of his refugee claim, largely because he was found not to be
credible and may not even have been in Sri Lanka at the relevant time, Mr.
Velummayilum applied for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA). Such an
application is limited to new evidence that arose after the rejection or was
not reasonably available.
[2]
Mr.
Velummayilum submitted that country conditions in Sri Lanka had deteriorated
since his refugee claim had been dismissed, and that he is facing new risks.
[3]
He
would be returning to Sri Lanka as a failed refugee and as someone who had left
Sri Lanka with a forged identity card, an offence under that country’s law.
[4]
The
PRRA officer dismissed the application. The application for judicial review of
that decision is hereby dismissed as well.
[5]
Although
conditions in Sri Lanka are far from ideal, particularly for young male Tamils
from the north and the east, it cannot be said, on the balance of
probabilities, that the situation has deteriorated so that the PRRA officer’s
decision was unreasonable.
[6]
As
to the new risk faced, that of a failed refugee, in reality Mr. Velummayilum is
advancing a refugee sur place claim.
[7]
Any
decision on a refugee claim is forward looking. The Refugee Protection
Division, of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, has to decide whether
there is a serious possibility of persecution on a United Nations ground under
s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or, under s.
97 on the balance of probabilities, a danger of torture or a risk to life or
cruel and unusual treatment and punishment (Li v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 1, [2005] 3 FC 239, [2005] FCJ No 1
(QL)).
[8]
Mr.
Velummayilum relies on the recent decision of Rathnavel v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 564, [2013] FCJ No 612 (QL).
Either that decision is distinguishable because it focused entirely on
credibility issues, or it is inconsistent with the great deal of recent case
law which has upheld the principle that it is no longer enough to fit the
profile of a young male Tamil from the north or east Sri Lanka to be accorded
refugee status. There must be something more. See Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v B380, 2012 FC 1334, [2012] FCJ No 1657 (QL);
PM v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 77,
[2013] FCJ No 136 (QL); SQ v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2013 FC 78, [2013] FCJ No 137 (QL); Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration) v B472, 2013 FC 151, [2013] FCJ No 192 (QL); Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration) v B323, 2013 FC 190, [2013] FCJ No 193 (QL);
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v 377, 2013 FC 320,
[2013] FCJ No 522 (QL); Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v B134,
order dated 8 April 2013, IMM-8010-12; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) v B344, 2013 FC 447, [2013] FCJ No 547 (QL); Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration) v A011, 2013 FC 580, [2013] FCJ No 685 (QL);
and Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v B451, 2013 FC 441,
[2013] FCJ No 561 (QL).
[9]
No
doubt a failed refugee claimant will be questioned on arrival in Sri Lanka. However, Mr. Velummayilum has not been found to have any links with the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and so the risk of persecution, although
always present, is no more than a mere possibility.
[10]
As
to his forged identity card, if that serves as a basis for persecution, the
persecution would be under s. 97 of IRPA, as it would not be based on the
United Nations Convention ground. No evidence has been put forth to establish
on the balance of probabilities a risk of torture or death.
[11]
Consequently,
the judicial review shall be dismissed.
ORDER
FOR
REASONS GIVEN;
THIS
COURT ORDERS that
1.
This
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
There
is no serious question of general importance to certify.
“Sean Harrington”
Email this Content