Docket: IMM-1046-14
Citation:
2015 FC 574
Ottawa, Ontario, May 1, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Locke
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JUDITH JACULINE
FRANCIS JAYARATNAM
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Background
[1]
This is an application for judicial review of a
decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada. On January 27, 2014, the RPD found that the applicant,
Judith Jaculine Francis Jayaratnam, was neither a Convention refugee nor a
person in need of protection under either section 96 or subsection 97(1) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA).
[2]
For the reasons set out below, I have concluded
that the RPD’s decision should stand and the present application should be
dismissed.
II.
Facts
[3]
The applicant is a Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka.
Before she left Sri Lanka, she was a psychological district liaison officer for
the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies, a network of humanitarian agencies in
Sri Lanka.
[4]
The applicant alleges that on April 7, 2013, she
was acting as a Tamil/English interpreter for an Italian woman who was working
with HALO Trust, an organization working on de-mining some areas in the north
of Sri Lanka. Their task was to question locals about identification and
reporting of mined areas and what action had been taken on such reports.
[5]
The applicant alleges that, as a Tamil woman
working with an international organization, she received information from
locals that went beyond the subject of her work. The applicant refers
specifically to two pieces of information:
- A resettlement
camp consisting of temporary shelters and built for young war widows with
children was located near an army camp, exposing the widows to possible
abuse from army personnel.
- Men in
communities located near minefields would go into the minefields at night
to retrieve scrap metal to scavenge for money.
[6]
Several times during the course of the day the
applicant acted as an interpreter for HALO Trust, a man the applicant took to
be a member of the army (though he was dressed in civilian clothes) warned her
to be careful what she chose to translate. The applicant suggests that the army
was concerned about certain sensitive information being made public. She claims
that she was so frightened by these warnings that she pretended to be sick the
next day in order to avoid a similar situation. The applicant alleges that she
received another similar warning while she was at her temporary residence in
the area.
[7]
The applicant also alleges that, upon her return
to her home in Colombo, other unknown persons came to her several times over
the next few months warning her not to tell anyone about the information she
had received on April 7, 2013. The last of these alleged warnings was at the
airport on November 12, 2013, as the applicant was leaving Sri Lanka to attend
a conference.
III.
The RPD’s Decision
[8]
The RPD noted that the applicant did not tell
anyone of her concerns, either with regard to the warnings she received while
in the north of Sri Lanka or with regard to those she received after returning
home, except to tell her replacement interpreter to “be
careful when you translate.”
[9]
The RPD also noted that the applicant was not
aware of anyone else at HALO Trust having similar problems.
[10]
The RPD found that the information that was
communicated to the applicant while she was in the north of Sri Lanka was not
confidential or sensitive, and it was doubtful that she would face a serious
threat because of it. The RPD noted that nothing serious had happened in the
seven months between the first warnings and her departure from Sri Lanka.
[11]
The RPD concluded that the applicant had not
demonstrated a serious possibility that she would be persecuted in Sri Lanka on
a Convention ground, or that, on a balance of probabilities, she would be
personally subjected to the dangers or risks contemplated in subsection 97(1)
of the IRPA.
IV.
Analysis
[12]
The applicant argues that the RPD made an
unreasonable finding of a lack of credibility after having acknowledged that
there were no contradictions in her testimony. The applicant argues that the
RPD made no explicit statement that it did not believe that she had received
the warnings she alleges while she was in the north of Sri Lanka. The applicant
argues that it is not open to the RPD to make a finding of lack of credibility
implicitly. The applicant argues that the RPD effectively made findings of
implausibility which should be done only in the clearest of cases (where the
allegations are outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected), being
careful not to be diverted by cultural differences, and only after clearly
identifying the factual basis for the finding: Isakova v Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2008 FC 149 at paras 10-12.
[13]
I am not prepared to interfere with the RPD’s
conclusion. The RPD provided several reasons for concluding that the warnings
the applicant alleged she received did not happen: she never told anyone of the
warnings; no one else seems to have received similar warnings; the information
in question was not particularly sensitive; and, there was no further action on
the warnings. It is also notable that there is no contemporaneous writing by
the applicant concerning the alleged warnings. I am mindful that, even in applying
the rigorous standards for findings of implausibility, the applicable standard
of review is reasonableness. I must show deference to the RPD’s assessment of
the evidence.
[14]
The applicant argues that it is not the precise
content of the information the applicant received while she was in the north of
Sri Lanka that is important. Rather, what is important is the Sri Lankan
authorities’ perception of the content of that information. If I understand
this argument correctly, it is that the danger arises because the Sri Lankan
authorities may believe that the applicant received information of greater
sensitivity than was actually the case. However, this argument is essentially
asking me to reach a different conclusion from the evidence than the RPD did.
It is not my role to reweigh the evidence.
[15]
In addition to the RPD’s apparent doubt as to
whether some of the warnings happened at all, the RPD also concludes that any
warnings that were communicated to the applicant were not serious enough to
warrant granting asylum. Again, the RPD notes that over seven months passed
from the day the applicant heard the information in question until the day she
left Sri Lanka, all without incident.
[16]
The applicant also asserts that she is at
particular risk in Sri Lanka as a single woman. Given that she cited no
problems in Sri Lanka other than those arising from the events of April 7,
2013, this assertion is insufficient to set aside the RPD’s decision.
[17]
Finally, the applicant asserts that her asylum
claim was not properly assessed under section 97 of the IRPA. However,
the findings of lack of credibility and lack of seriousness of the risks are
sufficient to dispose of the applicant’s claim under section 97. The RPD
committed no reviewable error.
Email this Content