Toronto, Ontario, February 22, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Yogeshwary Suppan is a young Tamil woman from the Jaffna peninsula in the north of Sri Lanka, who claims to fear persecution at the hands of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan army. Her claim for refugee protection was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, which found that her story was not credible, and further found that in any event, she had an internal flight alternative available to her in Colombo.
[2] The applicant now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision, asserting that its credibility findings were patently unreasonable. She further argues that the Board failed to consider the risk that she faced in Sri Lanka, having regard to her profile as a young Tamil woman from the northern part of the country. Finally, the applicant says that the Board erred in failing to address important evidence relating to the viability of an IFA in Colombo.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the application should be dismissed.
The Credibility Issue
[4] The Board’s finding that the applicant’s story was not credible was based, in part, on the fact that she only mentioned her fear of the LTTE at the port of entry, and made no mention of her alleged fear of the Sri Lankan army.
[5] Moreover, the Board found that there were significant omissions in the applicant’s initial Personal Information Form, most notably, the failure of the applicant to mention visits to her home by the LTTE in December of 2004, the threats made against her by the LTTE in February of 2005, or the kidnapping and release of her sister by the LTTE in early 2005.
[6] Although these events were ultimately mentioned in an amended PIF filed shortly before the hearing, the applicant still failed to mention a threat allegedly made against her by the LTTE in February of 2005.
[7] Even if I were to accept that the applicant had difficulty with the interpreter at the port of entry, which could have accounted for her failure to mention her fear of the Sri Lankan army, the Board clearly did not accept that the applicant was at risk from the army, based upon a single incident, some five years prior to the applicant’s departure from Sri Lanka.
[8] Moreover, the remaining omissions were sufficiently serious as to call the applicant’s credibility into question. In the circumstances, it was not patently unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant’s story of persecution at the hands of the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army was not credible.
The Failure of the Board to Address the Risk Based on the Applicant’s Profile
[9] The applicant says that the Board erred in failing to consider the risk that she faced in Sri Lanka, based upon her profile as a young Tamil woman from the north of Sri Lanka.
[10] In support of her submission, the applicant relies on the jurisprudence of this Court to the effect that there is a duty on the Board to assess the risk that would be faced by young Tamil males from the north of Sri Lanka if returned to their country, regardless of their credibility: see, for example, Sivalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FC 773, Balasubramaniam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1137, at ¶ 10, Satkunarajah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC 37, at ¶ 5, and Mylvaganam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1195, at ¶ 10.
[11] The applicant also relies on the decision in Seevaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 694 as authority for the proposition that this duty is also engaged in the case of young Tamil women from the north of Sri Lanka.
[12] I accept that there is just such a duty on the Board, where the evidence demonstrates that individuals sharing the profile of the refugee claimant are at risk. In the case of young Tamil males from northern Sri Lanka, there is usually a plethora of evidence before the Board demonstrating that such individuals are at risk of forcible recruitment by the LTTE.
[13] In a similar vein, in the Seevaratnam case relied upon by the applicant, the Court specifically found that there was evidence emanating from sources other than the applicant's testimony, which linked her claim to the ongoing persecution of young Tamil women in Sri Lanka.
[14] In this case, the evidence in the country condition information relied upon by the applicant shows that during the recent escalation of ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, Tamil men and women who were suspected of LTTE involvement were being rounded up by Sri Lankan security forces.
[15] There was nothing before the Board to suggest that the applicant would be perceived as being a LTTE member or supporter by Sri Lankan authorities. Given that the applicant did not demonstrate that she had a profile that would put her at risk, there was no obligation on the Board to consider her claim on that basis.
The IFA Issue
[16] Given that the Board clearly did not believe the applicant’s story, its findings on the IFA issue were made in the alternative. Having found no error in the Board’s credibility findings, it is not necessary to address the applicant’s arguments in relation to the Board’s IFA analysis.
Conclusion
[17] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[18] Counsel for the applicant suggested that a question for certification may arise if I were to determine that the Board did not have an obligation to consider the risk to the applicant based upon her profile as a young Tamil woman from Jaffna.
[19] In my view, the jurisprudence is quite clear that the duty to consider the risk to an applicant based on the applicant’s profile is only engaged where there is evidence before the Board that individuals sharing the profile of the applicant are at risk. That is not the case here, and accordingly, I decline to certify a question in this regard.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question of general importance is certified.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2192-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: YOGESHWARY SUPPAN v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: February 20, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Michael Crane FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. David Tyndale FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Michael Crane
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Too