Date: 20050812
Docket: IMM-9339-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1089
BETWEEN:
MOHAMED CASSIM NASOORDEEN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION and THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA") Officer, dated September 17, 2004, wherein the Officer found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Mohamed Cassim Nasoordeen (the applicant) is a citizen of Sri Lanka. He is of the Tamil race and Muslim religion. He is a member of the United National Party and alleges a fear of the rival Sri Lankan Muslim Congress, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ("LTTE") and the Sri Lankan authorities. The Immigration and Refugee Division (the "Board") refused the applicant's claim for Convention refugee status on January 10, 2002.
[3] The applicant submits that the Officer's assertion that she was not acting as a review panel of the Board's decision is erroneous. On page 4 of her decision the Officer lists the evidence that she took into account when making her PRRA.
[4] The respondent notes that at paragraph 28 of the applicant's representations in support of his PRRA application, he wrote that ". . . all of the present submissions and evidence are permitted and may be included in the present PRRA application." A number of the applicant's PRRA submissions relate to events that were considered by the Board. In Selliah v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2004 FC 872, there was no difficulty when the PRRA Officer considered documents such as the applicant's Personal Information Form ("PIF"). As a result, the applicant's allegations that the Officer erred by reviewing the information that was before the Board cannot stand. Moreover, the Officer gave her own reasons in support of her decision.
[5] The applicant also submits that the Officer's findings on credibility are erroneous. Questions of weight and credibility to be given to evidence are determinations to be made by the Officer. So long as the impugned decision is reasonable and clear reasons were provided, the decision must stand (Sidhu v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2004 FC 39).
[6] I find no significant error in the Officer's decision. She clearly points out inconsistencies between the documentary evidence and the applicant's allegations. Some of these inconsistencies include the discrepancy between which hospital the applicant was taken to after he had been attacked, as well as the location of his injuries.
[7] The Officer also noted that the applicant was able to leave Akkaraipattu to go to Ampara and then Kattankudy, apparently without difficulty, despite the road blocks and check points at the time. The US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2003 for Sri Lanka indicate that "Tamils had to obtain police passes to move freely in the north and east, and frequently they were harassed at checkpoints throughout the country. These security measures had the effect of restricting the movements of Tamils." The applicant's story is not consistent with this evidentiary proof.
[8] The Officer did not give weight to the letters listed at page 8 of the decision. As the Officer noted, the wording of all these letters is similar, no details of the complaint against the applicant were given, and no legal proof of the complaint was given. Moreover, the applicant did not explain why all these letters were written after April 2003, for incidents that occurred in October 2000. I do not think the Officer erred in concluding that these letters were self-serving, since they could have been submitted during the Board's hearing in August and November 2001.
[9] Finally, the Officer noted the progress in Sri Lanka since the cease-fire signed with the LTTE in February 2002. She cited a number of international documents in support of her conclusion. The case law supports the position that there is now peace and stability in Sri Lanka and the UN Refugee Agency is making its presence known more and more since June 2002 (Selliah v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2004 FC 872). This Court has also held that the cease-fire agreement had a signficant impact in reducing human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government generally respects the human rights of citizens, and that the government had taken steps to control human rights abuses (Fernandopulle v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2004 FC 415).
[10] In spite of a minor error concerning an omission in the applicant's PIF with respect to the latter's brother-in-law, the Officer's findings appear to be generally based on serious elements of proof before her. Under such circumstances, it is not incumbent upon this Court to substitute its own appreciation of the facts to that made by the Officer.
[11] As the applicant has failed to satisfy the Court that the Officer based her decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before her, the intervention of this Court is not warranted (see paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 and Figurado v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 458 at paragraph 51 (F.C.) (QL)).
[12] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 12, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-9339-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMED CASSIM NASOORDEEN v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 30, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: August 12, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Harry Tsimberis FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Harry Tsimberis FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada