Docket: IMM-5175-13
Citation:
2014 FC 495
Ottawa, Ontario, May 23,
2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ANTON JOHENDRAN IRUTHAYAM
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
The decision in issue is that of a Visa Officer
who determined that the Applicant did not meet the requirements for a permanent
resident visa as a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or as a member
of the humanitarian-protected persons abroad designated class.
II.
Background
[2]
The Applicant, a Tamil business man, feared
extortion from Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal [TMVP] were he to return to Sri Lanka. He had left Sri Lanka in 2009 because he was asked to pay ransom money. There was
evidence that the Applicant had, in 2001-2002, been taken by the LTTE and only
released upon payment of a ransom.
[3]
The Applicant admitted that he did not have
problems with the Sri Lankan authorities nor was he suspected of being LTTE.
His parent and siblings continued to live in Sri Lanka and encountered no
problems with the government either.
[4]
The Visa Officer, after referring to UNHCR and
UK Border Agency documents, concluded that the Applicant did not have a well-founded
fear of persecution. The Visa Officer ended his conclusion:
I have considered the provision of A108(4) but
have not found sufficient compelling reasons to prevent his return. Application
refused.
The reference to s
108(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27
[Act] is a major issue in this judicial review.
[5]
The Applicant argues that the decision is
unreasonable because the Visa Officer did not make a finding of previous
persecution and yet relied on subsection 108(4) of the Act which only applies
where such a finding is made.
[6]
Section 108(4) reads:
|
108. (4) Paragraph (1)(e) does not apply to a person who
establishes that there are compelling reasons arising out of previous
persecution, torture, treatment or punishment for refusing to avail
themselves of the protection of the country which they left, or outside of
which they remained, due to such previous persecution, torture, treatment or
punishment.
|
108. (4) L’alinéa (1)e) ne s’applique pas si le demandeur
prouve qu’il y a des raisons impérieuses, tenant à des persécutions, à la
torture ou à des traitements ou peines antérieurs, de refuser de se réclamer
de la protection du pays qu’il a quitté ou hors duquel il est demeuré.
|
III.
Analysis
[7]
The central point in the s 108(4) issue is
whether the finding is inconsistent with earlier findings or is a reference to
an alternative finding.
[8]
The Supreme Court of Canada has, in Newfoundland
and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board),
2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708, expressed the view that courts should not look
for ways to undermine a decision, that courts should look at the reasons as a
whole to find support for the decision – fairly put, courts are to read
decisions “generously but not blindly”.
[9]
In the present
case, the Visa Officer had, in several places, referenced the absence of a well-founded
fear. It would be inconsistent with those references to conclude that the
reference to s 108(4) was connected to the clear finding of absence of well-founded
fear of persecution.
[10]
A fairer and more
reasonable interpretation is that the s 108(4) reference was an alternative
finding. It may have been preferable to begin the finding with reference to an
alternative conclusion. However, the absence of such language is not fatal.
[11]
The Applicant is,
in essence, asking the Court to reweigh the evidence but he cannot point to
evidence that was overlooked. There were indications that business men were
targeted for money but this was not in the context of Convention grounds.
[12]
The Applicant
feared the TMVP, not the government. He asks this Court to conclude that the
TMVP is an arm of the government and hence the Applicant has fear of
persecution on political grounds. However, that finding would be contrary to
the Applicant’s PIF, his interview and his affidavit evidence.
[13]
Any argument
suggesting fear of being identified with the LTTE because of past ransom
payments is too speculative to be sustained.
IV.
Conclusion
[14]
For these reasons, this judicial review will be
dismissed. There is no question for certification.