Date: 20000626
Docket: IMM-3038-99
BETWEEN:
RAVEDASAN GANAGARATNAM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAWSON J.
[1] Ravedasan Ganagaratnam, the applicant, is a Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka from Chankanai in the Jaffna area of northern Sri Lanka. Mr. Ganagaratnam claimed status as a Convention refugee due to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group.
[2] The Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "CRDD") determined that Mr. Ganagaratnam was not a Convention refugee after concluding that he failed to produce credible and trustworthy evidence in support of his claim.
[3] On Mr. Ganagaratnam"s behalf in this application it was argued that the CRDD erred in finding his evidence not to be credible. Specific submissions were, that in reaching its conclusion on credibility, the CRDD erred by:
| (i) assessing Mr. Ganagaratnam"s demeanor in circumstances where the frequent and impatient interruptions of his testimony by a CRDD member caused the applicant"s soft spoken manner to be mistaken for an absence of the requisite emotion; |
| (ii) basing its findings of credibility on irrelevant considerations; |
| (iii) failing to confront the applicant with the inadequacy of his testimony; |
| (iv) ignoring plausible explanations given by the applicant; |
| (v) failing to confront the applicant with the entirety of the documentary evidence which ran counter to his testimony; |
| (vi) drawing an adverse inference from the applicant"s failure to mention the police as an agent of persecution at the outset of the hearing and from the applicant"s testimony as to the extent of his injury after being beaten by the police, which testimony left doubt as to whether he had suffered the beating the applicant described; and |
| (vii) making a finding which was based upon a mistake in the interpretation of the applicant"s testimony. |
[4] With the exception of the finding based upon a mistake in the interpretation of the applicant"s testimony, which error was conceded by counsel for the Minister, I have not been persuaded that the findings of the CRDD pertaining to credibility were not reasonably open to it.
[5] I found nothing in the hearing transcript that evidenced inappropriate questioning on the part of any panel member, particularly in view of the lack of detail which the applicant gave while testifying. As Justice Rothstein of this Court, as he then was, noted in Ambros v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 299 (T.D.): "[a] panel is entitled and well advised to ask questions to ensure that it is understanding, especially when confusing evidence is being given."
[6] I accept that the CRDD had no obligation to point to aspects of the applicant"s evidence that it did not find to be persuasive in circumstances where the onus was on the applicant to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. In this case, the CRDD did not err by failing to refer the applicant to all portions of the documentary evidence which it found to be inconsistent with his testimony. Mr. Ganagaratnam was represented by counsel and had been told that credibility was the issue of concern to the CRDD. Members of the panel did confront the applicant with portions of the documentary evidence which gave rise to two of the panel"s most significant concerns relating to the applicant"s stay at the Weppankulam camp and his involvement with the People"s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam.
[7] With respect to the error which flowed from a mistake in the interpretation of the applicant"s testimony, given the other properly founded conclusions of the CRDD, this error was not, in my view, so central to the CRDD"s decision as would warrant setting aside its decision.
[8] Therefore, despite the meticulous submission of counsel for the applicant, it is my view that the CRDD"s conclusions were reasonably open to it on the evidence before it, and the CRDD committed no overriding error which would justify this Court"s intervention.
[9] The application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel were in agreement that the case raises no serious question for certification.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
June 26, 2000