Docket: IMM-6345-14
Citation:
2015 FC 485
Montréal, Quebec, April 17, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Locke
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SURESHKUMAR
THAVAPALAN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Background
[1]
This is an application for judicial review of a
decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) officer denying a PRRA
application by the applicant, Sureshkumar Thavapalan, a Tamil citizen of Sri
Lanka.
[2]
The PRRA officer found that Tamils in Sri Lanka
are not systematically targeted unless they have certain risk factors. These
risks could include real or perceived links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE) (beyond prior residency within an area once controlled by the
LTTE), working for Tamil separatism and to destabilize the unitary Sri Lankan
state, links to Diaspora communities that provide support to the LTTE, having
family members with links to the LTTE, or journalism. The officer also noted
that Tamils face systematic discrimination in areas including government
employment, university education, and access to justice. The officer found that
the applicant fit none of the foregoing risk factors.
[3]
The applicant argues principally that the
impugned decision should be set aside because the PRRA officer (i) applied the
incorrect test for assessment of risk in a PRRA, and (ii) failed to consider
important evidence in his assessment of risk.
[4]
For the reasons set out below, I have concluded
that the impugned decision should stand and the present application should be
dismissed.
II.
Analysis
A.
Test for Risk Assessment
[5]
With regard to his assertion that the PRRA
officer applied the incorrect test for assessment of risk, the applicant refers
to an observation by the officer that there is no evidence that young Tamil
males from the North of Sri Lanka are systematically apprehended by the
authorities. The applicant argues, correctly, that systematic apprehension is
not the correct test for risk. However, in my view, this is not the test that
the officer applied to assess risk. The reference to systematic apprehensions
was merely an example of such risk. The officer was quite clear that risk could
be established in other ways, including those listed in paragraph 2 above.
[6]
I am not satisfied that the PRRA officer applied
the wrong test for assessment of risk.
B.
Consideration of the Evidence
[7]
With regard to his assertion that the PRRA
officer failed to consider important evidence in his assessment of risk, the
applicant refers to many documentary sources that paint a much bleaker picture
of the risks faced in Sri Lanka by young male Tamils from the North. The
applicant argues that it was a reviewable error for the officer to fail to
consider the many sources of information that differ so greatly from the few
that the officer elected to rely on. The applicant asserts that it is not
sufficient for the officer to simply state that he considered all of the
references.
[8]
In my view, the PRRA officer’s assessment of the
evidence was reasonable. Though the applicant asserts that the officer relied
mainly on an Operational Guidance Note on Sri Lanka from the U.K. Home
Office, the officer actually cited a number of other sources for his risk
assessment:
- US Department of
State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013: Sri Lanka,
27 February 2014
- Human Rights
Watch, World Report 2014: Sri Lanka, 31 January 2014
- Freedom House, Freedom
in the World 2013: Sri Lanka, 10 June 2013
- UN High
Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for
Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri
Lanka, 21 December 2012
- US Department of
State, 2012 Report on International Religious Freedom - Sri Lanka,
20 May 2013
[9]
It appears to be common ground that the
available documentation contains conflicting information concerning risks for
Tamils in Sri Lanka. This was acknowledged by the PRRA officer. He stated
explicitly that he considered all of the sources, and he was entitled to prefer
some sources of information over others, especially in light of the conflicting
information. The usual requirement to refer to evidence that contradicts a
tribunal’s decision is relaxed where the evidence in issue is general country
documentary evidence: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Kornienko,
2015 FC 85 at paras 17-18.
[10]
The applicant argued that a Swiss Report
entitled Sri Lanka: Current Situation – Update, dated November 15, 2012,
should have been addressed by the PRRA officer. While it was open to the
officer to do so, I am not prepared to conclude that it was an error not to do
so. The officer did not mention the Swiss Report, but I am not satisfied that
the officer overlooked it.
[11]
The applicant argues that the U.K. Home Office
document referred to by the PRRA officer was an outlier which should not have
been relied upon since it failed to acknowledge that Tamils in Sri Lanka could
face risks for a mere perception of links with the LTTE. I disagree with
this description of the U.K. Home Office document. It clearly identifies
perception of links with the LTTE as a risk factor: para 3.9.7.
C.
Other Issues
[12]
The applicant asserts that the he does
have perceived links with the LTTE. However, I am not satisfied that this
assertion is supported by the evidence.
[13]
The applicant also asserts that he faces risks
upon return to Sri Lanka as a failed refugee claimant. The PRRA officer
concluded that Sri Lankan authorities target returnees who have an existing
risk factor, e.g. perceived links with the LTTE. The officer was not satisfied
that returnees without such risk factors face risks as failed refugee
claimants. In my view, this was a reasonable conclusion.
[14]
Finally, I am not satisfied that the PRRA officer
erred in finding that (i) the applicant is not at risk due to his
ethnicity/religion, and (ii) there is insufficient information and evidence to
support the allegation that members of his family were subject to an extortion
attempt in Sri Lanka because of perceived links to the LTTE.
Email this Content