Date: 20070222
Docket: IMM-2192-06
Citation: 2007 FC 204
Toronto, Ontario, February 22,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
YOGESHWARY
SUPPAN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Yogeshwary
Suppan is a young Tamil woman from the Jaffna peninsula in
the north of Sri
Lanka,
who claims to fear persecution at the hands of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam and the Sri Lankan army. Her claim for refugee protection was rejected
by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, which
found that her story was not credible, and further found that in any event, she
had an internal flight alternative available to her in Colombo.
[2]
The
applicant now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision, asserting that its
credibility findings were patently unreasonable. She further argues that the
Board failed to consider the risk that she faced in Sri Lanka, having
regard to her profile as a young Tamil woman from the northern part of the
country. Finally, the applicant says that the Board erred in failing to address
important evidence relating to the viability of an IFA in Colombo.
[3]
For
the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the application should be
dismissed.
The Credibility Issue
[4]
The
Board’s finding that the applicant’s story was not credible was based, in part,
on the fact that she only mentioned her fear of the LTTE at the port of entry,
and made no mention of her alleged fear of the Sri Lankan army.
[5]
Moreover,
the Board found that there were significant omissions in the applicant’s
initial Personal Information Form, most notably, the failure of the applicant
to mention visits to her home by the LTTE in December of 2004, the threats made
against her by the LTTE in February of 2005, or the kidnapping and release of
her sister by the LTTE in early 2005.
[6]
Although
these events were ultimately mentioned in an amended PIF filed shortly before
the hearing, the applicant still failed to mention a threat allegedly made
against her by the LTTE in February of 2005.
[7]
Even
if I were to accept that the applicant had difficulty with the interpreter at
the port of entry, which could have accounted for her failure to mention her
fear of the Sri Lankan army, the Board clearly did not accept that the
applicant was at risk from the army, based upon a single incident, some five
years prior to the applicant’s departure from Sri Lanka.
[8]
Moreover,
the remaining omissions were sufficiently serious as to call the applicant’s
credibility into question. In the circumstances, it was not patently
unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant’s story of
persecution at the hands of the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army was not credible.
The Failure of the Board
to Address the Risk Based on the Applicant’s Profile
[9]
The
applicant says that the Board erred in failing to consider the risk that she
faced in Sri Lanka, based upon her profile as a young Tamil woman from the
north of Sri
Lanka.
[10]
In
support of her submission, the applicant relies on the jurisprudence of this
Court to the effect that there is a duty on the Board to assess the risk that
would be faced by young Tamil males from the north of Sri Lanka if returned to
their country, regardless of their credibility: see, for example, Sivalingam
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FC 773, Balasubramaniam
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1137, at ¶ 10,
Satkunarajah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC
37, at ¶ 5, and Mylvaganam v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1195, at ¶ 10.
[11]
The
applicant also relies on the decision in Seevaratnam v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 694 as authority for
the proposition that this duty is also engaged in the case of young Tamil women
from the north of Sri Lanka.
[12]
I
accept that there is just such a duty on the Board, where the evidence
demonstrates that individuals sharing the profile of the refugee claimant are
at risk. In the case of young Tamil males from northern Sri Lanka, there is
usually a plethora of evidence before the Board demonstrating that such
individuals are at risk of forcible recruitment by the LTTE.
[13]
In
a similar vein, in the Seevaratnam case relied upon by the applicant,
the Court specifically found that there was evidence emanating from sources
other than the applicant's testimony, which linked her claim to the ongoing
persecution of young Tamil women in Sri Lanka.
[14]
In
this case, the evidence in the country condition information relied upon by the
applicant shows that during the recent escalation of ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, Tamil men
and women who were suspected of LTTE involvement were being rounded up by Sri
Lankan security forces.
[15]
There
was nothing before the Board to suggest that the applicant would be perceived
as being a LTTE member or supporter by Sri Lankan authorities. Given that the
applicant did not demonstrate that she had a profile that would put her at risk,
there was no obligation on the Board to consider her claim on that basis.
The IFA Issue
[16]
Given
that the Board clearly did not believe the applicant’s story, its findings on
the IFA issue were made in the alternative. Having found no error in the
Board’s credibility findings, it is not necessary to address the applicant’s
arguments in relation to the Board’s IFA analysis.
Conclusion
[17]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[18]
Counsel
for the applicant suggested that a question for certification may arise if I
were to determine that the Board did not have an obligation to consider the
risk to the applicant based upon her profile as a young Tamil woman from Jaffna.
[19]
In
my view, the jurisprudence is quite clear that the duty to consider the risk to
an applicant based on the applicant’s profile is only engaged where there is
evidence before the Board that individuals sharing the profile of the applicant
are at risk. That is not the case here, and accordingly, I decline to certify
a question in this regard.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for
judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question
of general importance is certified.
“Anne
Mactavish”
Email this Content