Date: 20040617
Docket: IMM-2841-03
Citation: 2004 FC 862
BETWEEN:
PARANJOTHIE RAMANATHAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated March 31st, 2003, wherein the Board 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 (the "Act").
[2] Paranjothie Ramanathan (the "applicant") is a Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka who alleges a fear of persecution by the Sri Lankan army, the police, the People's Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for reasons of race, nationality, imputed political opinion, and membership in a particular social group. The applicant also alleges to be a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of the Act.
[3] The Board found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" because it found that his claim was not credible.
[4] This Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Board with respect to credibility findings unless the applicant can demonstrate that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). The Board is a specialized tribunal capable of assessing the plausibility and credibility of a testimony, to the extent that the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.)).
[5] In this case, the Board seriously questioned the applicant's allegations pertaining to the circumstances surrounding his place of residence in Sri Lanka. The Board noted that it was unclear why the applicant would have returned to Mannar in June 1998 after having fled. The Board rejected the applicant's explanation that he was ordered to return to Mannar because none of the applicant's documentation established a link between himself and the city of Mannar. In fact, according to the information on his National Identity Card, which was issued on May 4, 1998, the applicant is a resident of Columbo. The Board also noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence whatsoever to support his claims that he was in Mannar between 1998 and 2001. Since the applicant alleges that the most serious persecution he suffered was in Mannar, this lack of information supporting his claim of residence in that city is central to the refugee claim.
[6] Moreover, the Board also questioned the fact that the applicant obtained a residence pass for Columbo following his arrest in Mannar in 2001. The Board noted that it was not credible that the police would grant the applicant a pass to Columbo if he was to report to the army camp every two weeks in Mannar. In response to the Board's questions, the applicant could provide no satisfactory explanation for these inconsistencies. In fact, as argued by the respondent, the only arguments presented by the applicant are those stated in his affidavit which contains explanations that were already presented to the Board who deemed them unsatisfactory.
[7] Finally, the applicant contradicted himself with respect to whether he had filed a refugee claim in the United States of America (the "USA") before coming to Canada. At one point, the applicant says that he had not sought asylum in the USA, but then later admits that he was awaiting a hearing. The Board considered that this inconsistency placed a doubt upon the applicant's fear of persecution.
[8] All of the inconsistencies noted by the Board were central to the applicant's claim because they put into question the very basis of his fear of persecution. The Board clearly explained its reasons for doubting the applicant's credibility in light of these discrepancies and I am satisfied that it acted reasonably in concluding that the applicant was not credible and that his claim for refugee status should be rejected on this basis.
[9] The applicant submits that the Board erred in law in requiring him to produce documents from the US Immigration and Naturalization Services ("USINS") file in support of his claim because in doing so, the Board imposed a too high burden on him (Afzal v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] 4 F.C. 708 (T.D.)). The Board found that the applicant had made no serious effort to obtain documents which would have corroborated his allegations regarding his itinerary and his date of arrival in the USA. Rule 7 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-228 (the "Rules"), provides that "the claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they were not provided and what steps were taken to obtain them". Consequently, the fact that the Board retains the applicant's lack of serious effort in acquiring the documents in the possession of the USINS has no impact on the burden imposed on the applicant. In fact, the Rules clearly provide that the applicant must provide such documents. In this case, the Board rejected the applicant's explanation that he thought that Citizenship and Immigration Canada would take care of obtaining the documents (see Quichindo v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 463 (T.D.) (QL), Matarage v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] F.C.J. No. 460 (T.D.) (QL) and Owoussou v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (May 5, 2004), IMM-1251-03, 2004 FC 661).
[10] Consequently, taking into account the Board's additional findings with respect to the applicant's lack of credibility, I find that the Board could reasonably draw an adverse inference from the applicant's lack of efforts to submit any documentation which corroborates his itinerary and date of departure from Sri Lanka and/or arrival to the USA. Furthermore, in light of the absence of evidence supporting the applicant's claim that he left Sri Lanka in August 2001, the Board could conclude that he was not in Colombo at the end of July when he claims to have been detained.
[11] For all the above reasons, the applicant having failed to show that the Board committed any reviewable error, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[12] Upon reading the parties' counsels' written submissions with respect to questions to be certified, I agree with the substance of the respondent's counsel's arguments that this case involves no matter for certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 17, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2841-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: PARANJOTHIE RAMANATHAN v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 13, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: June 17, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Sarah Piven FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Marie Nicole Moreau FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Sarah Piven FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario