IMM-3724-96
B E T W E E N:
INDRARAJAN
KANAPATHYPILLAI
Applicant
-
and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS
FOR ORDER
HEALD, D.J.:
This is an application for
judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division
of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated September
23, 1996, wherein it was determined that the applicant is not a Convention
refugee.
The Facts
The applicant is a citizen
of Sri Lanka. His claim for refugee status is on the basis of his perceived
political opinion and membership in a particular social group, namely, male
Tamils from Jaffna. The sole issue herein is whether the Board erred in
finding that the applicant had an internal flight alternative in southern Sri
Lanka since it was agreed that the applicant had a reasonable fear of
persecution in northern Sri Lanka.
The applicant and his son
arrived in Colombo in early October of 1995. Eight days after their arrival,
they were both arrested during a round-up at the lounge where they were
staying. The applicant stated that he was questioned on the purpose of his
visit to Colombo and was accused of being involved in the sabotage of an oil
refinery. He further stated that the authorities did not believe him and
subjected him to cruel treatment as well. At the hearing before the Board, the
applicant's counsel chose not to examine him on his treatment while in
custody. In his affidavit (November 14, 1996), the applicant said that, at the
Board hearing, the Board member indicated that he accepted the applicant's
Personal Information Form (P.I.F.) as if it was given under oath and that it
would not be necessary for him to repeat any of the evidence set out in the
P.I.F. This statement is not supported by the hearing transcript. Whatever
transpired prior to the Board hearing (for which there is no transcript), the
hearing transcript clearly shows that the internal flight alternative was
identified as a relevant issue.
Issues
1.Did
the Board err in concluding that the applicant was not mistreated during his
time in custody in Colombo?
2.Did
the Board further err in concluding that there was no serious possibility of
persecution of the applicant in Colombo?
Analysis
1.Cruel
and inhuman treatment
The basis for this
allegation is found in the applicant's Personal Information Form (P.I.F.).
This P.I.F. makes an ambiguous and confusing claim. No evidence was adduced to
support it. Such statements as "I am a refugee" or "I was
persecuted" or "I suffered inhuman treatments" are not
sufficient in themselves to substantiate a claim to Convention refugee status.
To be effective, they must be supplemented by cogent evidence. Counsel for the
applicant suggests that the applicant was beaten and tortured during his
detention. The evidence on this issue is not persuasive. Accordingly, I
conclude that cruel and inhuman treatment has not been established on this
record.
2. Serious possibility of
persecution in Colombo
It is the applicant's
submission that the Board erred in concluding that the treatment of the
applicant was justified because Sri Lanka, involved in a civil war, was
necessarily entitled to adopt stringent security measures. In any event, this
record does not establish that the applicant was mistreated in Colombo as
alleged. The Court cannot be asked to imply mistreatment in the total
absence of evidence thereof.
Additionally, I do not
think that the Board's reasons can be taken as justifying persecution during a
civil war.
What the Board was saying
was that security measures relating to the applicant were understandable in
view of the civil war, but, in any event, such measures did not constitute
persecution. Accordingly, I conclude that the Board did not err when it found
that the applicant was not a person who would have a reasonable fear of future
persecution upon return to Sri Lanka.
Since the applicant did
not adduce any specific evidence to the effect that he had been beaten or tortured
during his detention in Colombo, it follows, in my view, that this application
for judicial review must be dismissed.
Neither counsel suggested
certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to Section
83 of the Immigration Act, I agree with counsel. Accordingly, no question is
certified.
"Darrel V. Heald"
D.J.
Toronto, Ontario
July 11, 1997
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
Names
of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3724-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: INDRARAJAN
KANAPATHYPILLAI
-
and -
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JULY
10, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO,
ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD,
D.J.
DATED: JULY
10, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr.
Lorne Waldman
For
the Applicant
Mr.
Godwin Friday
For
the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
281
Eglinton Avenue East
Toronto,
Ontario
M4P
1L3
For
the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy
Attorney General
of
Canada
For
the Respondent
Email this Content