Date: 20040722
Docket: IMM-2609-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1023
Ottawa, Ontario, this 22nd day of July, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
MATHIVANNAN RATNASABAPATHY
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Ratnasabapathy was mistreated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Sri Lankan Army, the Sri Lankan Navy and the Colombo police at various times over the past 20 years. He finally decided to leave Sri Lanka and sought refugee protection in Canada. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board heard his claim and found that his account of events was credible. Still, the Board concluded that Mr. Ratnasabapathy had not proved that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were sent back to Sri Lanka today.
[2] Mr. Ratnasabapathy argues that the Board's decision is at odds with the evidence before it and asks me to order a new hearing. However, I cannot find an error on the Board's part that would justify overturning its decision. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
[3] There is a single issue in this case: Did the Board make a serious error when it concluded that Mr. Ratnasabapathy's experiences did not give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution?
II. Analysis
[4] I can overturn the Board's decision only if I find that it was patently unreasonable, in the sense that it was completely unsupported by the evidence.
[5] Mr. Ratnasabapathy was a fisherman in Valvettithurai. He enumerated several events that he felt supported his refugee claim. For instance, the Navy arrested and detained him for 16 days in 1984. Later that year, the Navy attacked his boat and injured him. In 1990, the LTTE detained him for 39 days. In 1993, the LTTE confiscated two of his boats. In 1994, the Navy fired at one of his boats and an employee was killed. The Army, suspecting he was an LTTE supporter, summoned and beat him in 1996. It destroyed his home in 1997. In 1999, the LTTE hijacked one of his boats. He reported the theft to the Army but, because it still suspected him of supporting the LTTE, it detained him for six days. He was released after paying a bribe. In 2000, the LTTE forced Mr. Ratnasabapathy to transport some of its members to the east coast of Sri Lanka. The next year, the LTTE demanded that he ship goods from India for them. He refused. When threatened with death, he decided to go to Colombo. There, he was arrested, tortured and detained by police. When released, he left the country.
[6] Mr. Ratnasabapathy told the Board that his main fear was that the LTTE would seek revenge on him because he had reported its theft of his boat.
[7] The Board noted that the LTTE would likely be aware that Mr. Ratnasabapathy had already been detained and beaten after having reported the theft of the boat. Presumably, there would be little point in seeking revenge now. Further, the LTTE had chances to exact revenge on Mr. Ratnasabapathy before he left Valvettithurai but did not do so. In fact, the LTTE continued to try to get his help.
[8] The Board also noted that Mr. Ratnasabapathy's family remains in Valvettithurai and he had no evidence that they were being mistreated by the LTTE. Mr. Ratnasabapathy explained that his wife was afraid that the LTTE was monitoring her calls and, therefore, that she could not say anything negative about the LTTE over the phone. He says that his family stayed in Sri Lanka because the children are still in school and because he could not afford their travel costs to Canada. The Board found that Mr. Ratnasabapathy's explanations did not support his claim of a serious risk of persecution.
[9] Finally, the Board observed that there is a "fragile ceasefire" currently in place in Sri Lanka. The LTTE is less active in government-controlled areas than it was during the periods of great strife in the 1990s.
[10] Based on this analysis of the evidence, the Board concluded that Mr. Ratnasabapathy had "failed to establish an objective well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka today". I cannot find that the Board's decision was patently unreasonable. The Board carefully considered Mr. Ratnasabapathy's testimony and all of the allegations that he had presented. It evaluated the current risk presented by the LTTE, as it was entitled to do.
[11] I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
F.C.J.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2609-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: RATNASABAPATHY v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: Monday, July 19, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: Thursday, July 22, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. John M. Guoba FORTHE APPLICANT
Mr. Robert Bafaro FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JOHN M. GUOBA
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content