Date: 20030711
Docket: IMM-3523-02
Citation: 2003 FC 842
Between:
RAMA THEIVENDRAN
RESHMY THEIVENDRAN
INDHUJA THEIVENDRAN
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the IRB") rendered on June 25, 2002, and signed by Sajjad Randhawa on July 10, 2002, that the plaintiffs are not Convention refugees under the definition given in s. 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The principal plaintiff ("the plaintiff"), Rama Theivendran, is the mother of the two minor plaintiffs, Indhuja and Reshmy Theivendran. The latter based their claim on that of their mother. The plaintiffs are citizens of Sri Lanka, but the minor plaintiffs were born in Munich, Germany. They are all of the Tamil race and Hindu religion.
[3] The plaintiff alleged a reasonable fear of persecution on account of her race, nationality, religion and membership in a particular social group (young Tamil woman from the north).
[4] The IRB concluded that the plaintiffs were not refugees on the ground that the principal plaintiff's testimony was not credible for the following reasons:
- the plaintiff's testimony was lacking in candour: the information regarding her brother's status was only obtained after several questions were put to her;
- her testimony regarding her inability to get a new identity card was vague;
- her testimony about her marriage was imprecise and contradictory;
- her explanations as to why her husband had remained in Germany were contradictory;
- the IRB did not believe the plaintiff's allegations when the latter testified that the army and the LTTE ("Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam") had come to look for her husband several times so he could take photos, that he had gone with them but he had never actually taken any photos;
- the plaintiff's testimony about the problems encountered by her brothers and sisters was contradictory; and
- the plaintiff did not clearly explain what she had to fear if she went back to Sri Lanka. She only expressed a general fear of the army and the LTTE. Her testimony in this regard lacked spontaneity.
[5] After hearing counsel for the parties and reviewing the evidence, I consider this Court's intervention is not warranted. On questions of credibility it is not for this Court to take the place of the IRB when, as here, the plaintiff fails to show that the tribunal's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it (s. 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). The IRB is a specialized tribunal which has the power to assess the plausibility and credibility of testimony so long as, and this was true here, the inferences which it draws are not unreasonable and its reasons are set out clearly and understandably (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.) and Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.)).
[6] On the plaintiff's argument that the IRB did not take the documentary evidence into account when it found that she had not established a reasonable fear of persecution in Sri Lanka, it must be borne in mind that the tribunal is presumed to have taken all the evidence presented to it into account (Hassan v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.)). In a case such as this where the witness lacked credibility, the documentary evidence regarding conditions in Sri Lanka certainly did not suffice to establish a well-founded objective fear of persecution.
[7] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
|
|
"Yvon Pinard"
Judge
|
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 11, 2003
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: IMM-3523-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: RAMA THEIVENDRAN, RESHMY THEIVENDRAN, INDHUJA THEIVENDRAN v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 17, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Pinard J.
DATED: July 11, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Myriam Harbec FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Michel Pépin FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Myriam Harbec FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content