Docket: IMM-1634-14
Citation:
2015 FC 741
Ottawa, Ontario, June 11, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
EUGENE
MARIYADAS
|
|
MARY DORIN
CHRISHANTHY PETER
|
|
ASHLEY LYDIA EUGENE
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
INTRODUCTION
[1]
This is an application under s 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act] for judicial review of the
decision of an immigration officer [Officer], dated February 10, 2014
[Decision], which rejected the Applicants’ application for permanent residence under
the Convention refugees abroad class.
II.
BACKGROUND
[2]
The Applicants are a Tamil family from Sri Lanka. They are a husband [Principal Applicant], wife, and their eight-year-old
daughter.
[3]
The Applicants seek refugee status based on the
Principal Applicant’s experiences with the Sri Lankan Army, the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE], and the Eelam People’s Democratic Party [EPDP].
The Principal Applicant says he was detained in April 2008 and accused of
having LTTE connections. He also says that he was harassed and threatened by
the Sri Lankan Army, the LTTE and the EPDP while working as a graphic designer
for a newspaper.
[4]
In April 2008, the family fled Sri Lanka and have been living in India since then. In April 2009, the Applicants’ extended family
was approved to sponsor the Applicants for permanent residence under the
Convention refugees abroad class.
III.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[5]
The Applicants’ application for permanent
residence was refused on February 10, 2014. The Officer was not satisfied that
the Applicants were members of the Convention refugees abroad class because the
Principal Applicant and his wife provided inconsistent and conflicting answers regarding
their fears of returning to Sri Lanka at their interview. The Officer said that
she had provided the Applicants with opportunities to address her concerns but
that they failed to provide sufficient details or explanation to alleviate her
concerns. She concluded that the Applicants were not credible and she was not
satisfied that they had a well-founded fear of persecution, or that they have
been, or continue to be, seriously and personally affected by civil war, armed
conflict or massive violations of human rights.
IV.
ISSUES
[6]
The Applicants raise the following issues in
this application:
1. Did the Officer err in failing to consider all of the grounds for protection
that could have been inferred from the evidence?
2. Did the Officer err in failing to assess whether there was any
independent evidence capable of supporting the Applicants’ claim for refugee
protection?
3. Did the Officer err in her assessment of the Applicants’
credibility?
V.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[7]
The Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v New
Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 [Dunsmuir] held that a standard of review
analysis need not be conducted in every instance. Instead, where the standard
of review applicable to a particular question before the court is settled in a
satisfactory manner by past jurisprudence, the reviewing court may adopt that
standard of review. Only where this search proves fruitless, or where the
relevant precedents appear to be inconsistent with new developments in the
common law principles of judicial review, must the reviewing court undertake a
consideration of the four factors comprising the standard of review analysis: Agraira
v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at para
48.
[8]
The Applicants submit that questions of
discretion and mixed fact and law are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness.
Questions of procedural fairness and questions of law are reviewed on a
standard of correctness: Kastrati v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2008 FC 1141 at paras 9-10. The Officer’s decision as to whether the Applicants
meet the Convention refugees abroad class is a question of mixed fact and law
and is reviewed on a standard of reasonableness: Kamara v Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2008 FC 785 at para 19 [Kamara]; Alakozai v
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 266 at para 18 [Alakozai];
Alfred v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 987 at para 19. The
Respondent submits that the standard of review for decisions under the Convention
refugees abroad class is reasonableness: Sivakumaran v Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2011 FC 590 at para 19 [Sivakumaran]; Sribalaganeshamoorthy
v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 11 at para 14.
[9]
The first two issues raise questions of mixed
fact and law regarding the Officer’s determination under the Convention refugees
abroad class. The Court agrees that these questions are reviewable on a
standard of reasonableness: Kamara, above, at para 19; Sivakumaran,
above, at para 19. The Officer’s credibility assessment is also reviewable on a
standard of reasonableness: Aguebor v Minister of Employment and Immigration
(1993), 160 NR 315 (FCA); Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration
(1994), 169 NR 107 (FCA).
[10]
When reviewing a decision on the standard of
reasonableness, the analysis will be concerned with “the
existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the
decision-making process [and also with] whether the decision falls within a
range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the
facts and law”: see Dunsmuir, above, at para 47; Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 59. Put another
way, the Court should intervene only if the Decision was unreasonable in the
sense that it falls outside the “range of possible,
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.”
VI.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
[11]
The following provisions of the Act are
applicable to this proceeding:
|
Convention
refugee
|
Définition
de « réfugié »
|
|
96. A
Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of
persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group or political opinion,
|
96. A qualité
de réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui, craignant
avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa
nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions
politiques :
|
|
(a) is
outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of
that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those
countries; or
|
a) soit se
trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de
cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays;
|
|
(b) not
having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former
habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to
return to that country.
|
b) soit, si
elle n’a pas de nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle avait
sa résidence habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut y
retourner.
|
[12]
The following
provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227 is applicable to this proceeding:
|
Member of
Convention refugees abroad class
|
Qualité
|
|
145. A
foreign national is a Convention refugee abroad and a member of the
Convention refugees abroad class if the foreign national has been determined,
outside Canada, by an officer to be a Convention refugee.
|
145. Est un
réfugié au sens de la Convention outre-frontières et appartient à la
catégorie des réfugiés au sens de cette convention l’étranger à qui un agent
a reconnu la qualité de réfugié alors qu’il se trouvait hors du Canada.
|
VII.
ARGUMENT
A.
Applicants
[13]
The Applicants submit that the Officer failed to
consider all of the grounds for protection that could have been inferred from
the evidence. Specifically, the Applicants say that the Officer failed to
consider whether the Principal Applicant’s previous employment with a newspaper
and a publisher could have established the need for refugee protection. It is
the Officer’s duty to raise and consider relevant grounds: Canada (Attorney
General) v Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 [Ward]; Pastrana Viafara v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1526 at para 6 [Pastrana
Viafara]; Adan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 655
at paras 30-31, 39 [Adan]. The Officer asked whether the Principal
Applicant had worked as a journalist, but the fact that he had not should not
have ended the Officer’s questions in this regard.
[14]
The Applicants also submit that the Officer
erred in failing to consider whether the Applicants had satisfied the
subjective and objective requirements for refugee protection, notwithstanding
her finding that they were not credible: Attakora v Minister of Employment
and Immigration (1989), 99 NR 168 (FCA); Seevaratnam v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 167 FTR 130 at paras 11, 13; Manickan
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1525 at paras
1, 6. The Officer failed to consider the Principal Applicant’s profile,
specifically his ethnicity combined with his employment history, in light of
the Sri Lankan country condition documents. The Officer is presumed to be
familiar with general country conditions: Citizenship and Immigration Canada OP5:
Overseas Selection and Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad Class and
Members of the Humanitarian-protected Persons Abroad Classes; Saifee v
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 589 at paras 28, 30-31. The
Officer made no credibility findings about the Principal Applicant’s past
employment history. The documentary evidence indicates that journalists, and
other individuals employed in the media, continue to be at risk in Sri Lanka. The Officer also failed to consider the risk of torture that the Applicants face
as failed asylum seekers.
[15]
Finally, the Officer erred in making a global
credibility finding based on one inconsistency in the Principal Applicant’s and
his wife’s testimony: Guney v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008
FC 1134 at para 17. The Officer failed to say why she found the rest of the
Applicants’ evidence not credible.
B.
Respondent
[16]
The Respondent submits that the Applicants have
failed to challenge the determinative credibility issue; rather, the Applicants
attempt to circumvent this issue by reshaping their claim for protection before
the Court. The Officer’s credibility findings are entitled to a high degree of
deference: Alakozai, above, at paras 19, 35-37; Xuan v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 673 at paras 18-20. The Officer put her
credibility concerns to the Applicants; not only did they fail to provide a
reasonable explanation for the inconsistencies but their explanations evolved.
The Federal Court has held that an officer need not provide individual
credibility analyses when an applicant fails to provide independent evidence: Paplekaj
v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 947 at paras 14-17 [Paplekaj];
Aguilar Moncada v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 104 at
para 33.
[17]
The Respondent also submits that the Applicants
have reshaped their refugee claim before the Court. The Officer repeatedly
asked the Applicants what they feared and the Principal Applicant consistently
replied that he feared persecution due to his Tamil ethnicity. Judicial review
is not an opportunity for a second chance to reshape a claim: Singh v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1370 at para 12 [Singh]; Zsoldos
v Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 305. The Applicants cannot bolster the
record by claiming new risks in their affidavit before the Court: Construction
and Specialized Workers’ Union, Local 1611 v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2013 FC 512 at para 83; Stemijon Investments Ltd v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FCA 299 at para 41.
[18]
Finally, the Respondent submits that the
Decision makes clear that the Officer considered whether the Applicants would
face any risk as failed asylum seekers. The Global Case Management System [GCMS]
notes are part of the reasons for the Decision: Pirzadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 461 at para 29.
C.
Applicants’ Reply
[19]
In reply, the Applicants submit that they are
not reshaping their claim before the Court but merely argue that the Officer
failed to consider all of the grounds for possible protection that could have
been inferred from the evidence. The Officer had a particular duty to consider
whether the evidence could support additional grounds for protection in light
of the fact that the Applicants were unrepresented: Adan, above. The
Applicants also reiterate that they do in fact challenge the Officer’s
credibility findings.
D.
Respondent’s Further Submissions
[20]
In further submissions, the Respondent notes
that the Applicants’ reply acknowledges that they did not put forward a claim
of prospective risk based on the Principal Applicant’s employment history. The
only risk that the Principal Applicant indicated in relation to his work as a
graphic designer was his fear that in the future he would have to work night shifts
and may be picked up due to his Tamil ethnicity. The Court cannot decide an
issue on judicial review that was not raised before an administrative decision-maker:
Toussaint v Canada (Labour Relations Board) (1993), 160 NR 396 at para 5
(FCA); Abbott Laboratories Limited v Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FCA
354 at para 37.
[21]
The Federal Court of Appeal has also held that
there is no error when a decision-maker fails to consider an element of a claim
where it is reasonable to expect that the applicant would have raised the issue:
Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2
FC 164 at para 10 (CA). The Applicants’ reliance on Ward is misplaced. The
Officer’s failure to create a new prospective risk is not the same as the
officer in Ward’s failure to decide under which enumerated ground a
prospective risk fell under. There was no basis for the Officer to consider
where the Principal Applicant’s fear of being targeted as a graphic designer
would properly fall because the issue was never raised: Paramanathan v
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 338 at paras 12-18; Suppaiah
v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 429 at para 41. It is
illogical to seek judicial review on a claim of risk never placed before the
Officer: Mariko v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004
FC 1136 at para 29; Kanapathipillai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2012 FC 477 at paras 29-31.
[22]
The fact that the Applicants were initially
self-represented does not remove the Applicants’ burden to establish their
claim; nor does it increase the Officer’s burden: Adams v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 529 at paras 24-25; Kamara, above,
at paras 20-21, 25. Furthermore, the Applicants were represented for at least
part of their initial application; written submissions from a lawyer were
placed before the Officer.
[23]
Finally, the Applicants have failed to point to
any errors with the Officer’s credibility findings: Alibali v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 657 at para 18; Jarrah v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 180 at paras 17-18. The fact
that the Applicants are dissatisfied with the result is not a ground for
seeking judicial review: Singh, above, at para 12.
VIII.
ANALYSIS
[24]
The Applicants have raised three (3) principal
grounds for review, and I will deal with them in turn.
A.
Failure to Consider All of the Grounds that
Could be Inferred from the Evidence
[25]
A reading of the Decision (including the GCMS
notes) makes it clear that the Officer went to considerable pains to identify
and explore the basis for the Applicants’ fear of returning to Sri Lanka. The Officer cannot invent fears and must rely upon what the Applicants say they
fear. The Officer repeatedly asked the Applicants what they feared and then asked
questions in an attempt to identify the objective basis for their stated fears.
[26]
Specifically, the Applicants complain that the
Officer did not explore and address the Principal Applicant’s former employment
as a graphic designer for both the Uthayan Newspaper in Jaffna and the Amaithi
Press in Vavuniya with a view to identifying a possible ground for protection.
[27]
When the Principal Applicant was directly asked “Can you tell me why you believe that you or your family
would be personally targeted?” his answer was as follows (CTR at 56):
…In 2008 and 2007 I was picked up, and
before that my wife (before marriage in 1993) was picked up to work for them.
Her father had to get her released. Even besides that, I was working for a
paper called Udayan Publications, and we could never go to work. They always
intercepted us and troubled us. In 2004, I moved to Vavunia [sic] and
I worked as a graphic designer and at that point, the army used to trouble us.
I had gone through a lot. That’s why I decided to leave SL. What did you do at
the newspaper? –graphic designer You didn’t work as a journalist? –no I am
still having trouble understanding why you believe that things that may have
happened in the past would cause you to fear returning now? –even last year, my
parents were rounded up and since I was the missing member in the family, they
have been asking for me. My parents were tortured, when they didn’t tell them
about my whereabouts. My records of being arrested once are with the police and
I am sure that when I go back, they will arrest me again. When were your
parents picked up? –last December when they went for a midnight mass. They were
arrested. And then the incident of the young girl being raped scares me because
my dtr is 8 years old. I feel there is no guarantee for my safety. What makes
you think the same thing would happen to your daughter? What is the connection
to your family? –Since it has happened to someone there. It could also happen
to my daughter. There is no guarantee for life. That girl’s parents would not
have expected it to happen. I do not want to take the risk with my dtr.
Unfortunately, terrible crimes happen in every country but what makes you think
that your family might be targeted in a similar way? –the same thing can happen
to anyone. Even if we go back, there is no guarantee for any of us. We were
young people at that time and we were picked up so many times which is what
made us come to India. Now we are scared that whatever is happening to others
can happen to us too. My b-i-l was picked up from inside the house right in
front of us but we were unable to ask any questions. Even when I was going to
work, no one knew if I would come home after work. Things are the same even
now. Since there is no security, I am afraid of going back…
[28]
Later in the interview, the Officer again
attempted to get to the bottom of the Applicants’ fears and asked the Principal
Applicant “I would like to give you one more chance to
explain to me why this incident relates to your family? As I said earlier
horrible crimes happen in every country, including Canada. Why do you believe
this incident with the little girl would put your family at risk?”
[29]
In his answer to this question, the Principal
Applicant again mentions his employment (CTR at 57):
…this incident happened in our village to
people who we know very well, that is why we are scared because I will also be
going to the same village if I go back. Also, if I have to work, I have to work
with any paper or publication because I am a graphic designer and I will also
be given only night shifts. So, if they pick me up, people won’t even know
because in 2007 the same thing happened. People who saw me being picked up were
the ones who informed my parents, otherwise they would have never known where
they took me. Now a Tamil organization called EPDP is giving us problems
because they think that all Tamils are LTTE. What is the name of your village? –Mandeithevu.
This is an island where only fisherman live. Even my brother’s shops are in
Jaffna, it’s about 6-7 kms away and even if I have to go back I have to live in
my land and my village and I have to travel for my work, which is why I’m
scared that I might be picked up on my way to or from work…
[30]
It has to be borne in mind that the Officer made
a global negative credibility finding: “These
inconsistent stories diminish the credibility of everything that you have told
me” (CTR at 54). Notwithstanding this finding, the Officer appropriately
went on to consider the country documentation on returning Tamils from India
and attempted to identify what the Applicants believed placed them at risk in
light of the fact that the documentation does not suggest that all Tamils are
at risk.
[31]
As the Principal Applicant’s answers make clear,
he did not say at the interview that he was afraid of being picked up or
targeted because he has worked as a graphic designer in the past, or that he was
afraid that he will be picked up in the future because he will work as a
graphic designer for a newspaper in the future. His stated fear is that he may
be picked up on this way to and from work and no one will know about it. He
does not identify association with a publication as a basis for his fear. As
regards past association with a publication, the evidence suggests that the Principal
Applicant has not worked as a graphic designer since April 2006. His most
recent employment experience included computer and field operations.
[32]
The Officer’s role is not to suggest possible
grounds for protection that the Applicants can then adopt. The Officer’s role
is to give the Applicants a full opportunity to identify the basis of their
fears and then to explore their subjective fears with a view to identifying an
objective basis. See Pastrana Viafara, above. This is precisely
what the Officer did in this case. The Principal Applicant provided no basis
for a possible inference that he feared risks associated with working for a
publication. That is a new ground that the Applicants have raised as part of
this application. It was not a ground that was placed before the Officer –
either directly or by inference – and so the Officer’s failure to consider it
cannot be considered a reviewable error. The Applicants’ former legal counsel
made submissions to the Officer on behalf of the Applicants and did not suggest
that the Principal Applicant’s past work as a graphic designer was related to
prospective risk. Rather, counsel submitted that the Applicants were “victims of persecution at the hands of the Sri Lankan
Security Forces and the LTTE and were forced to flee due to lack of state
protection” (CTR at 184). As for the future, the Principal Applicant
says he intends to work as a graphic designer “with any
paper or publication.” He does not say this will be Tamil-related or a
publication that opposes the government. So there is no evidence to support a
future risk because of his association with some publication that could lead to
his being harassed or attacked. The record shows that the Principal Applicant’s
Personal Information Form discussed two incidents of persecution that happened
while he was a graphic designer for a newspaper. So, there was some information
before the Officer regarding the Principal Applicant’s past experience of
persecution while working in the media and there was general documentary
evidence regarding the treatment of journalists and media professionals. What
was missing was any attempt by the Applicants to link this information to
future risk. The Principal Applicant had not been working as a “media professional” for the last two years in Sri Lanka
and there was no indication that he would continue to work as a “media professional.” He also, as discussed in the
judgment, never said he was at risk because he was a media professional, but
rather he was at risk because he is a Tamil who would have to work nights.
There also wasn’t any real evidence about the risks that “media professionals” continue to face. There is
evidence of journalists perceived to be LTTE supporters being at risk but there
just doesn’t seem to be anything else that applies to these Applicants.
B.
Independent Evidence Capable of Supporting a
Claim for Refugee Protection
[33]
The Applicants say that (Applicants’ Record at
259):
The Officer failed to assess the principal
Applicants’ [sic] profile, due to his ethnicity in addition to his past
employment in the media/journalism industry in light of the documentary
evidence with which she is expected to be familiar. Moreover, the evidence
before the Officer was that the Applicants would be returning forcibly from
India to Sri Lanka as refused asylum seekers.
[34]
Once again, the Applicants refer to the
Principal Applicant’s employment situation and say that the evidence before the
Officer was that it was not only journalists who face persecution in Sri Lanka,
but also those “employed with or associated with media
publications.” The Applicants then say that (Applicants’ Record at 262):
there was evidence before the Officer
linking the principal Applicant to the documentary evidence relating to the
risks faced by individuals of certain profiles in Sri Lanka; evidence which
should have been assessed by the Officer despite the Officer’s credibility
findings.
[35]
The Applicants are, once again, complaining that
the Officer did not assess a prospective risk which they did not raise in their
claim. As previously discussed, there is no evidence to show that the Principal
Applicant claimed to have a profile at risk based upon his possible future
association with some publication and there was no inference to this effect.
The Principal Applicant said he feared persecution because he is a male Tamil
and because he is afraid for his daughter.
[36]
There was also no evidence before the Officer regarding
which publication the Principal Applicant might work for in the future that
would place him at risk.
[37]
The Applicants refer to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the
International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka which mention
that “other media professionals” may be at risk,
but the Principal Applicant did not claim he was at risk as a “media professional” and he provided no evidence that
he would be targeted in the future because of his job. Once again, the
Applicants are seeking judicial review on an issue that they did not place
before the Officer or that the Officer could surmise as a risk as a matter of
inference. The Applicants were very clear about the risks that they said they
faced and the Officer repeatedly asked for clarification of those risks.
[38]
The Applicants also complain that the Officer
did not assess the risks they face as “refused asylum
seekers.” Once again, the Applicants are raising a ground for review
that was not before the Officer and when the Officer asked if there were other
reasons to fear returning to Sri Lanka, the Principal Applicant’s wife answered
definitively “No, there is nothing else.” The
Officer also made it clear to the Principal Applicant that “Everything you tell me today is confidential and no one in
your country will know what we talked about.” There is no suggestion in the
Principal Applicant’s responses to the Officer’s questions that he feared he
would be mistreated as a failed asylum seeker. Once again, the Applicants are
raising an issue for review that was not placed before the Officer, either
directly or by way of inference. When asked “Why do you
believe you can’t return now?”, the Principal Applicant answered (CTR at
56):
…as soon as we go to the airport, I am
afraid I’ll be picked up. I don’t have land or a house to start a new life.
Also, EPDP and the army have been inquiring and the police records have all the
family details. Even last year my parents were picked up and tortured. They
wanted to know where I was. My brothers are finding it difficult to live there.
I have also heard that people who have been away from SL for a long time are
picke dup [sic] as soon as they land and are interrogated. In 2012, I
heard that a 7 year old girl was raped and her body was found in a well. My dtr
is growing up so I am scared for her security. What makes you think you would
be picked up at the airport? –I hear from people in India that those who have
gone to SL are picked up but they don’t know their whereabouts. The CID is
constantly watching people who return back to SL. That is why I am afraid the
same thing might happen to me. It’s very normal for people entering a country
or returning to their home country to be questioned about what they have been
doing by the authorities. –I am scared because are Tamils and my identity card
shows me as a Tamil citizen. We are all suspected of being supported [sic]
of being LTTE. If they pick us up at the airport, we don’t know where they will
take us. Nobody will know where they have taken me.
[39]
The Principal Applicant never says he fears
returning as a failed asylum seeker. Regardless, the Decision shows that the
Officer went on to address the documentary evidence on Tamils returning to Sri
Lanka. In my view, the Applicants have not raised a reviewable error with
regard to this evidence. The Applicants did not show that they fit the profile
of anyone who might be harmed upon return. Their subjective fears were not enough.
C.
Assessment of Credibility
[40]
Credibility was at the centre of the Decision.
The Applicants suggest that the Decision was unreasonable because the Officer
drew a global negative credibility conclusion from inconsistent evidence
between the Principal Applicant and his wife. They also argue that the Officer
had no reason to disbelieve the Principal Applicant’s employment history.
[41]
The claims of past targeting were central to the
claim and, as the Officer points out, the adult Applicants provided
inconsistent responses which “directly related to your
stated fears of returning to Sri Lanka” (CTR at 3). The Principal
Applicant’s employment history is irrelevant to the Decision because the
Principal Applicant’s employment profile was not claimed as a ground of
prospective risk. As already discussed, the Principal Applicant feared that he
would be targeted travelling back and forth to work, particularly at night.
This fear is directly connected to the past incidents of targeting for which
the adult Applicants provided evidence that was contradictory in significant
material ways. However, the Officer also made it clear that the “inconsistent stories diminish the credibility of everything that
you have told me” (CTR at 54). In other words, the inconsistencies were
so significant that the Applicants could not be regarded as truthful. Having
found the Applicants untruthful on the facts supporting the central part of
their claims, there was no impediment to rejecting all of their testimony
without specifically addressing it where other incidents and factors were
supported only by their testimony. See Paplekaj, above, at para 17;Alakozai,
above, at paras 36-37. This left the Officer to assess the risks to the
Applicants as Tamils returning from India, which the Officer did.
[42]
In conclusion, I can find no reviewable error
with this Decision.
[43]
Counsel agree there is no question for
certification and the Court concurs.
Email this Content