Date: 20000626
Docket: IMM-1816-99
BETWEEN:
PONNAMPALAM MANGAIYAKARASI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review in respect of a decision dated March 12, 1999, wherein the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division, determined that Ponnampalam Mangaiyakarasi (the "Applicant") is not a Convention refugee.
| [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka. She is 57 years of age and is from the Jaffna region of Sri Lanka. She fled Sri Lanka as a result of her fear of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan authorities. |
| [3] According to the Applicant, in August 1997, the LTTE forced her and her husband to give up their home to the LTTE movement. As a result of the LTTE"s extortion of the house, the Applicant fears that the Sri Lankan authorities will conclude that she and her husband are supporters of the LTTE. Moreover, prior to the extortion of the house, the Applicant testified that the LTTE imprisoned both her and her husband in 1994. |
| [4] The Board found a number of omissions in the Applicant"s Personal Information Form ("PIF") as compared to her testimony. For example, in her testimony she claimed that it was she and her husband and not the LTTE that told the local population that the donation of the house was made voluntarily and not under duress. |
| [5] The Applicant"s PIF indicates that it was LTTE who announced to the people in the area that she and her husband had voluntarily donated the house to the movement. Moreover, in the PIF, the Applicant indicates that "the Tigers has already taken a number of houses from other people along the coastline and were using the houses for military purposes". |
| [6] In its decision, the Board found that unless the locals had misinformed the Sri Lankan authorities, they would have no reason to believe that the house had been given to the LTTE other than by an act of duress. Thus, the panel did not believe that the Sri Lankan authorities would see the donation of the house as anything other than an act under duress. Accordingly, the Board was not satisfied that the claimant had a well-founded for fear of persecution if she were to return to Jaffna. |
| [7] The Board also noted that, based on the documentary evidence, the Applicant did not fit the profile of a person who is at risk in Sri Lanka. |
| [8] Upon a careful review of the Board"s decision as well as all of the material submitted, and after having read and heard the submissions of counsel, I cannot conclude that the Board erred in determining that the Applicant did not have an objectively well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka. Nor can I conclude that the Board erred in concluding that the act of extortion would not be perceived by the Sri Lankan authorities as anything other than an act of duress. Morever, there is documentary evidence on which the Board could conclude that the Applicant would not be at risk at the hands of the LTTE. |
| [9] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. |
| [10] Counsel for the parties have seven days from their receipt of these reasons to submit a question for certification. |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: PONNAMPALAM MANGAIYAKARASI |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J. |
DATED: MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000
| APPEARANCES BY: Mr. John Grice |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. John Grice |
1110 Finch Avenue West
Suite 403
North York, Ontario
M3J 2T2
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000626
Docket: IMM-1816-99
BETWEEN:
| PONNAMPALAM MANGAIYAKARASI |
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Email this Content