Sashitharan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1021

Date: 20040721

Docket: IMM-4922-03

Citation: 2004 FC 1021

BETWEEN:

                                              KANAGARATNAM SASHITHARAN

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                                        REASONS FOR ORDER

PHELAN J.

[1]                The Applicant alleges that the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer ("Officer") ignored relevant documentary evidence which would have confirmed the risk he would face if he was returned to Sri Lanka. The Applicant contends that the Officer was selective,in that he did not refer to various comments in the country reports which might be relevant to the Applicant's claim;while referring to other comments which do not assist him.

[2]                This is a classic instance of an Applicant asking this Court to re-weigh the evidence. This Court has consistently held that it should not and will not engage in that type of review.

Background

[3]                The Applicant is a Sri Lankan male, born in the north but who moved to the south. He sought refugee status on the basis that he had been arrested twice and beaten once while under arrest. The incident of beating was not accepted by the CRDD and the two arrests were said to be of limited time and impact. He was denied refugee status by the CRDD.

[4]                In May 2003, just over a year after his refugee claim was denied, his PRRA application was also denied. The PRRA decision based principally on the fact that his two previous detentions in Sri Lanka had been for short periods, and, his release indicated that he was not considered a security threat to Sri Lankan authorities. As such, he would not be at risk if he were returned to his home country.

[5]                In his judicial review the Applicant raised a number of issues but only pressed, wisely in my view, the issue of selective use of portions of the country reports.

Analysis

[6]                The Officer relied on several sources regarding country conditions from which he drew

the conclusion that conditions were much improved but not perfect in Sri Lanka. There was considerable reliance on the US DOS Report.

[7]         The Applicant points to a number of passages from the DOS Report which suggest that

the country situation is not as benign as the Officer concluded. The Applicant says that the selective use of country condition evidence and the failure to refer to contrary evidence is an error of law.

[8]         The issue turns on how relevant the omitted evidentiary references are to the core of the

Applicant's claim. In this case, the Applicant puts considerable emphasis on the fact that he was only released from detention upon payment of a bribe, and, that no reference was made to findings of police misconduct.

[9]         The standard of review, with respect to the findings of country conditions and the

relevance of all that evidence to the Applicant's claim, is patent unreasonableness.

[10]       When one examines the documents relied on by the Officer, they point to a general

improvement in conditions in Sri Lanka. The Officer was under no obligation to refer to portions of the documents which would assist the Applicant.

[11]       Those portions of the country documents which would assist the Applicant are not so

compelling or so relevant to the Applicant's case that failure to refer to them is an error of law. There is no basis for suggesting that the Officer ignored those portions of the documents.

[12]       Having reviewed all of the record, I am unable to agree that the Officer's conclusions

were patently unreasonable. For this reason the application for judicial review will be dismissed.

[13]       There is no question to be certified.

"Michael L. Phelan"

                                                                                                                                                   J.F.C.                          

                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                          IMM-4922-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          KANAGARATNAM, SASHITHARAN

                                                                                                                                              Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                    TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                      JULY 19, 2004             

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:         PHELAN, J.

DATED:                                             JULY 21, 2004

APPEARANCES BY:                      

Ron Polton / I. Francis Xavier              For the Applicant

Jamie Todd                                          For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:         

Ron Polton / I. Francis Xavier

Barrister & Solicitor

Scarborough, Ontario                           For the Applicant

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent