Docket: IMM-4706-16
Citation:
2017 FC 1045
Ottawa, Ontario, November 16, 2017
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SRIDER
PALANIVELU
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Mr. Palanivelu is a national of Sri Lanka. His
claim for refugee protection was dismissed by the Refugee Protection Division
[RPD] and his appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] was also denied. An
application for leave to review that decision was dismissed by this Court. Mr.
Palanivelu made an application for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] which
was denied. His application for judicial review of that decision was heard
together with this application, and a decision will issue denying that review:
See 2017 FC 1044.
[2]
This application for judicial review relates to
the application of Mr. Palanivelu for a visa exemption permitting him to file
an application for permanent resident status from within Canada, on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds [the H&C Application]. In the
H&C Application Mr. Palanivelu says that he is seeking the exemption “as return to Sri Lanka would expose him to severe hardship,
discrimination, harassment and an overall environment which is violent and
volatile for him, and for persons similarly-situated to him.”
[3]
Mr. Palanivelu, before the RPD, RAD and in his
PRRA application alleged that he would be at risk in Sri Lanka from its
security forces because he had been previously detained because of suspected links
to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE]. He further testified that his
wife had previously been married to a man in the LTTE, who was killed in the
conflict by the army.
[4]
The RPD found that Mr. Palanivelu was not
credible. It was not satisfied that he had been detained, that his wife was a
widow of an LTTE member, nor that he would be, or had been, targeted by
security forces because of his wife’s deceased spouse. He did not challenge
the credibility finding relating to his evidence to the RAD, and presented no
new evidence.
[5]
In the PRRA application and in the H&C
Application, he presented two letters as new evidence: a letter from his wife
in Sri Lanka and a letter from a member of parliament for the Jaffna electoral
district. The Officer who assessed the PRRA application also assessed the
H&C Application. In each decision, the Officer assigned little weight to
these letters. In my review of the PRRA decision, I held that the Officer’s assessment
was reasonable, and I repeat that ruling in this application. That analysis
addresses one of the grounds raised in this application; namely that the
Officer “erred by rejecting 2 credible letters, each
with significant probative value.” Other grounds of review are raised.
[6]
Mr. Palanivelu submits that the Officer erred “by requiring the applicant to demonstrate ‘significant
financial establishment’ in Canada.” This submission is based on the
following passages from the decision:
The applicant first
entered Canada on October 31, 2013. His application shows that he started
working in November 2015 for ACE Bakery, and he submits a March 16, 2016 letter
from his employer confirming his start date and ongoing employment. He also
submits pay stubs covering the period from November 29, 2015 to April 30, 2016
showing that he works about 40 hours a week and nets between $450 and $550 per
week. The applicant also submits his 2015 income tax assessment, showing 2015
earning of $11,566. The applicant does not say where he worked prior to ACE
Bakery, but his earnings for 2015 suggest that he had another employer.
…
The applicant does not describe his work
history or source of financial support prior to November 2015. He does not
submit evidence of savings, renting a home, remitting money to family in Sri
Lanka, ownership of a car or other assets, or other evidence of financial
establishment. While I grant weight to the applicant’s employment history, I am
not satisfied that he has submitted evidence of significant financial
establishment. [emphasis added]
[7]
I do not accept that the Officer required that
Mr. Palanivelu have “significant financial
establishment.” As the Respondent notes, in his H&C Application,
Mr. Palanivelu himself describes his establishment as significant:
My client remains gainfully employed in
Canada, on a full-time basis. He is financially self-sufficient and he has
done a stellar job, in the midst of a refugee claim determination process, of
improving his English proficiency, securing employment, and contributing to the
Canadian labour market and economy. This establishment is significant
and ought not be interrupted or relinquished by virtue of potential removal to
Sri Lanka. [emphasis added]
[8]
I agree with the Respondent that an Officer can
hardly be faulted for using the applicant’s own terminology when stating that
he does not agree with his submission. In any event, the evidence of financial
establishment provided by Mr. Palanivelu, in my view, cannot be said to be
anything more than minimal, and most certainly not worthy of much weight.
[9]
Mr. Palanivelu also submits that the Officer
erred by “finding, within a Visa exemption request,
that the solution for the applicant is to return to Sri Lanka to be
reunited with his family and children [emphasis added].” He also
submits that the Officer’s consideration of the children’s best interests was
unreasonable and not in keeping with guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada.
[10]
The Officer’s statement here complained of was
made in the section of his analysis dealing with the best interests of the
children. The Officer’s analysis is as follows:
The applicant says that he has three
children in Sri Lanka, aged 5, 4, and 2. The applicant submits little
additional information about his children and how they would be affected by the
outcome of this application.
The applicant does not say that he remits
money to Sri Lanka to support his children and does not submit copies of
remittance receipts. He does not say that he hopes to bring his children to
Canada if this application were approved.
With such limited information about the best
interests of the applicant’s children, I cannot grant much weight to this
factor in this application. I note that a return to Sri Lanka would reunite
the applicant with his children, and it seems likely that the children would
benefit from a reunification.
[11]
The submission of Mr. Palanivelu is that “[w]hile a return to Sri Lanka may reunite the applicant with
his wife and children, this was quite irrelevant as the crux of his
H&C was his fear of discrimination, harassment and harsh consequence
[emphasis in original].”
[12]
In my view, Mr. Palanivelu’s complaint overlooks
that an Officer in an H&C Application is required to consider the best
interests of the children involved: See Kanthasamy v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61, at para 39. This remains the
case even where, as here, an applicant provides scant information regarding his
children and their respective situations abroad or in Canada. Had the Officer
not done this analysis, it may have been a reviewable error. Moreover, given
the extremely brief narrative this applicant provided – that he has three
children in Sri Lanka and their ages – he cannot now complain that the
Officer’s analysis was brief. As the Federal Court of Appeal observed in Owusu
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 38, at para 8:
H&C applicants have no right or
legitimate expectation that they will be interviewed. And, since applicants
have the onus of establishing the facts on which their claim rests, they omit
pertinent information from their written submissions at their peril.
[13]
I see no error here of the sort alleged. Given
the dearth of information about his children, nothing much could be said about
their best interests. Given that family reunification is usually better for
the children, it was not objectionable for this officer when considering their
interests to note that they would likely be reunified with their father in Sri
Lanka.
[14]
Lastly, Mr. Palanivelu submits that the
Officer’s “analysis of country conditions in Sri Lanka,
including [his or her] finding of a viable internal flight alternative in
Colombo or Uva Province, is unreasonable.”
[15]
I concur with the Respondent’s submissions that the
Officer reasonably and adequately reviewed the country condition documents and
did so based on this applicant’s identity – keeping in mind the numerous
findings that he would not be perceived to be someone with LTTE connections. I
further agree with the submission that:
[T]he H&C Officer’s discussion regarding
Colombo and Uva province does not constitute an IFA finding as this finding is
understood in a risk assessment. This statement was made in context of
assessing the Applicant’s hardship – the H&C Officer noted that the
Applicant had significant ties to Colombo and Uva province where he could
relocate to avoid any unwanted government monitoring. It is open to the
H&C Officer to consider different regions of a country in assessing
hardship.
[16]
In my view, the Officer’s analysis was well
reasoned, transparent and consistent with the evidence placed before him or
her. No reviewable error is found.
[17]
Neither party proposed a question for
certification, nor is there one on these facts.
Email this Content