Ariyakumaran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-2936-96

     IMM-2936-96

B E T W E E N:

     SEVVANTHINATHAN ARIYAKUMARAN, MANGAYATKARASI

     ARIYAKUMARAN and GOPIKRISHNA ARIYAKUMARAN

     Applicants

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

HEALD, D.J.:

     This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board where the Board determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees. The applicants are a Sri Lankan family, father, mother, son. They are Tamils from Northern Sri Lanka. The father is the principal applicant. He stated that he personally experienced difficulties with the Sri Lankan security forces, the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), the Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

     The father owned two businesses in Sri Lanka, a tea store and a bakery. In August of 1985 he was assaulted at his tea store and the premises were destroyed. It was closed shortly thereafter. In July of 1988 he was beaten once more. On October 5, 1989 the EPRLF and the IPKF arrested his wife. She was released when the father turned himself in. He was detained for eight days until his wife paid a bribe to obtain his release. In June of 1994 the wife was again arrested and detained for 3 days. She was released upon payment of a bribe by her husband. The principal applicant further testified that his bakery was raided on May 5, 1995. Quantities of flour were found there and as a result, he was again arrested and detained. In August of 1995, the adult applicants went into hiding with their two year old son. They fled to Canada a month later. They paid a bribe in order to safely escape through the International Airport at Katunayake.

THE BOARD'S DECISION

     The Panel made adverse findings of credibility with respect to the evidence of both adult applicants. At page 12 of the Record, it stated:

"The panel does not believe the story of either claimant. We do not believe that the principal claimant was ever arrested. If the police had suspected the claimant of being a L.T.T.E. member or supporter, they could have arrested him on their first raid at the lodge and would not have released him."

     My perusal of this record persuades me that having regard to the totality of evidence, the panel was entitled to come to this conclusion.¹

     The Panel then went on to reject the applicant's' claim on the basis that they had an internal flight alternative in Colombo. The Federal Court of Appeal has held that for an applicant to establish that an internal flight alternative does not exist, that applicant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that a serious possibility of persecution exists for that applicant, throughout the country.² The Panel, after reviewing the facts, concluded that the authorities in Sri Lanka had taken important steps to improve human rights practices. They had also prosecuted human rights violators. The rate of detention had dropped in Colombo, and identity checks of transient Tamils has almost been eliminated. Accordingly, I think it was reasonably open for the Panel to conclude, as it did, that random police checks and arrests are insufficient support for the well-foundedness of the applicant's fear.

     For the foregoing reasons, the within application for Judicial Review is dismissed.

CERTIFICATION

     Neither Counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to the provisions of Section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree that this is not a case for certification.

                         "Darrel V. Heald"

                             D.J.     

Toronto, Ontario

June 12, 1997

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:              IMM-2936-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:      SEVVANTHINATHAN

                 ARIYAKUMARAN, MANGAYATKARASI

                 ARIYAKUMARAN and

                 GOPIKRISHNA ARIYAKUMARAN

                 - and -

                 THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                 AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:              JUNE 10, 1997

PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:          HEALD, D.J.

DATED:                      JUNE 12, 1997

APPEARANCES:

                         Mr. David B. Cranton

                             For the Applicants

                         Ms. Diane Dagenais

                             For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

                         Mr. David B. Cranton

                         Barrister and Solicitor

                         2279 Queen Street East

                         2nd Floor

                         Toronto, Ontario

                         M4E 1G5

    

                             For the Applicants

                         George Thomson

                         Deputy Attorney General

                         of Canada

                             For the Respondent

                     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                     Court No.:      IMM-2936-96

                     Between:

                     SEVVANTHINATHAN

                     ARIYAKUMARAN, MANGAYATKARASI

                     ARIYAKUMARAN and GOPIKRISHNA

                     ARIYAKUMARAN

     Applicants

     - and -

                     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                     AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

                     REASONS FOR ORDER

__________________

¹      Compare Medina v. Canada (1990) 12 Imm L.R. (2d) 33 (F.C.A.).

²      See Thirunavukkarasu v. M.E.I., [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A.).