Date: 19980630
Docket: IMM-3170-97
BETWEEN:
SRIVATHANY KUMARAVEL
AHILAN KUMARAVEL
ARUNAN KUMARAVEL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROTHSTEIN, J.
1 The issues in this judicial review of a decision of a panel of the Convention Refugee Determination Division which denied the refugee claims of a mother and her two sons from Sri Lanka are:
1.Did the panel give reasons for refusing the refugee claims of the sons.
2.Did the panel reasonably assess the evidence in finding that the husband and father would not pose a threat to the applicants if they were to return to Sri Lanka.
2 On the first issue, the panel observed that the mother feared that her sons would be persecuted by the police who would suspected them of being L.T.T.E. supporters or members. The panel noted that the sons were born in Colombo and had birth certificates to that effect and that 60% of Colombo residents are Tamils. The panel acknowledged that Tamil residents undergo frequent security checks by the Colombo police and the fear of periodic terrorist attacks by the L.T.T.E. However, the panel concluded that this did not constitute persecution.
3 While the panel's reasons are somewhat cryptic, I am satisfied they address the situation of the two sons. The reference to their birth certificates implies that the panel was of the view the sons would not be suspected as coming from the north which is the basis for the suspicion that they would be L.T.T.E. supporters. With 60% of the residents of Colombo being Tamil and acknowledging the frequent security checks, the panel addressed the situation faced by the two sons. This case is different from Selvarajah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 1997 F.C.J. 1515 Court File Number IMM-4570-96 per Lutfy J., November 6, 1997. In that case the panel did not set out reasons for determining that the son was not a refugee. In this case, such reasons, although brief, are set out.
4 On the second point, applicants' counsel submits that the panel's finding that the husband was not a threat because he did not contact the applicants when they left him was unreasonable because they had gone to a war zone. However, the mother's evidence before the panel was that when the applicants left, the husband seemed to be happy to see them go. The panel also noted that the mother was a law school graduate who would have knowledge of the law and would be able to access support networks and legal recourse if necessary. Applicant's counsel argues that if the applicants return to Colombo they would be required, by economic circumstances, to return to their abusive father and husband. From the panel's reasons, it is apparent the panel considered the mother's situation and concluded that there were employment opportunities for educated, long-term Tamil residents in Colombo. The panel clearly was of the view that if the applicants return to Colombo they would not live with their abusive husband and father. While they may suffer economic hardship, this is not a basis for a refugee claim.
5 The panel assessed the claims of each of the individuals as well as the risk of abuse by the applicants' husband and father. Its conclusions are supported by the evidence.
6 The judicial review is dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
June 30, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3170-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: SRIVATHANY KUMARAVEL ET AL.
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 30, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.
DATED: JUNE 30, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Lorne Waldman
For the Applicant
Mr. Jeremiah Eastman
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jackman, Waldman & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
281 Eglinton Ave. East
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1L3
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980630
Docket: IMM-3170-97
Between:
SRIVATHANY KUMARAVEL
AHILAN KUMARAVEL
ARUNAN KUMARAVEL
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content