Docket:
IMM-10407-12
Citation: 2014 FC 25
Ottawa, Ontario, January 9, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
A061
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is a judicial review of a refugee claim by
a passenger on the MV Ocean Lady. It is almost identical in all major
respects to that in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
v A25, 2014 FC 4 [A25]. Therefore, the result of this judicial
review will be the same and for essentially the same reasons.
[2]
The Respondent is a young Sri Lankan Tamil male.
His evidence was that while in Sri Lanka he had been detained, beaten and
threatened by members of the Sri Lankan army, who questioned him as to his
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE] involvement and sympathies. He was
released and subsequently left Sri Lanka. Shortly after he left Sri Lanka, his mother reported that the army was still looking for him and that his
brothers were being rounded up by the army.
[3]
The Respondent was a passenger on the MV
Ocean Lady which arrived in Canada on October 17, 2009. The refugee claim
was made immediately thereafter.
[4]
The Member of the Refugee Protection Division
[RPD] was the same member who rendered the decision which was reviewed in A25.
The Member found the Respondent to be generally credible. Somewhat curiously
the Member found that there was no persuasive evidence to suggest that the
Respondent was a member of or would have been considered to have any connection
to the LTTE prior to his embarkation.
The
Member did find that the Respondent’s profile changed when he boarded the ship,
in part due to the international publicity surrounding the ship and its alleged
connection with the LTTE.
[5]
The Member concluded that the Respondent would
be viewed by the Sri Lankan government as a person with at least possible ties
to the LTTE. The Member found that he would likely be detained because of these
suspicions and detention would likely involve beatings and torture. In support
of these conclusions, the Member relied on:
•
evidence from an expert on international
terrorism about LTTE ownership and use of the ship;
•
an internal Canadian government report that
one-third of the passengers were Tamil Tigers;
•
statements of the then Minister of Public Safety
suggesting belief that the LTTE had organized the MV Ocean Lady voyage;
•
the fact that the RCMP had been in contact with
Sri Lankan authorities regarding the ship; and
•
UNHCR report that persons suspected of links
with the LTTE needed protection.
[6]
In deciding that the likely actions of the Sri Lanka government amounted to persecution, the Member relied on a number of sources
ranging from the 2011 US DOS to a CBSA report and information from the Canadian
High Commission.
[7]
The Member’s consideration of the evidence was
thorough and balanced.
[8]
While the Member’s decision that the Respondent
was “a member of a particular social group” is legally questionable, there are
other grounds under s 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27, that support the legal basis for the Member’s decision, as
outlined in A25.
[9]
Therefore, for the same reasons as A25,
this judicial review will be dismissed.
[10]
There is no question for certification and there
is insufficient cause to order costs against the Applicant Minister.
Email this Content