Docket: IMM-1431-14
Citation:
2015 FC 454
Toronto, Ontario, April 13, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
KABILAN RASALINGAM
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
ORDER AND REASONS
(Delivered Orally from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario on April 9, 2015)
[1]
Kabilan Rasalingam (the Applicant) has applied
for judicial review of a decision dated January 7, 2014 made by a Senior
Immigration Officer (the PRRA Officer) wherein he rejected the Applicant’s
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application. This application is made
pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27 (the IRPA).
I.
Background
[2]
The Applicant is a 25 year-old citizen of Sri
Lanka of Tamil ethnicity. He fled Sri Lanka in July 2010 and made a refugee
claim when he arrived in Canada based on his fear of persecution at the hands
of the Sri Lankan army.
[3]
In a decision dated October 12, 2011 the Refugee
Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the RPD) dismissed
the Applicant’s claim after finding that the Applicant would not face
persecution as a young Tamil male in Sri Lanka. The Applicant’s credibility and
insufficient objective evidence to substantiate his claim were the
determinative issues in that decision. The Applicant subsequently filed an
application for leave and judicial review which was dismissed at the leave
stage.
[4]
In December 2012, the Applicant applied for a
PRRA. The PRRA Officer reviewed the Applicant’s new evidence which included two
letters from his mother, as well as a letter from a Rural Officer.
[5]
The material item in the new evidence, in my
view, was the second letter from the Applicant’s mother, dated April 30, 2012
(the New Evidence). In that letter, she explained that a man named Chandra from
the Sri Lankan army had visited their family home looking for the Applicant.
Another unnamed army officer apparently inquired about whether the Applicant
had joined the LTTE in Canada. She noted that a friend who was arrested at the
same time as the Applicant had been re-arrested and not yet released, but no
reason was given for his arrest.
[6]
The PRRA Officer identified several problems
with the New Evidence including the fact that, the Applicant’s mother did not indicate
why the army was interested in the Applicant’s whereabouts. As well, she did
not provide any evidence to corroborate the arrest of the friend; she did not
provide specific dates, times or locations for the inquiries made by Chandra
and she did not explain why one Officer believed the Applicant to be in Sri Lanka, while the other thought he might be in Canada. Finally, the PRRA Officer noted that there
was no evidence that the Applicant’s mother had been visited by members of the
army since 2012. The most recent visit had occurred eight months before the
PRRA application was submitted.
[7]
For all these reasons, the PRRA Officer found
the letter to be “vague, speculative in nature and
written by someone with an interest in the outcome of this assessment”.
The PRRA Officer also concluded that “the evidence
before me does not support that he is being sought or targeted by the Sri
Lankan army or others in Sri Lanka”.
II.
The Issue
[8]
The issue is whether in reaching the conclusion
described above, the PRRA Officer made a negative credibility finding or simply
concluded that the New Evidence was insufficient.
III.
Discussion
[9]
In my view, looking at the decision as a whole,
it is clear that the PRRA Officer’s principal concern was that the New Evidence
was not current and was not detailed enough to be helpful.
[10]
The PRRA Officer also expressed concern that the
New Evidence came in part from an interested party and was not corroborated.
This concern presumably led him to question its probative value in the sense
that, without corroboration, the worry would be that it might not be credible.
However, in my view, credibility never became a material issue. It was the
sufficiency of the evidence that was the concern.
[11]
For these reasons, the application will be
dismissed.
[12]
No question was posed for certification for
appeal pursuant to section 74(d) of the IRPA.
Email this Content