Date: 19981009
Docket: IMM-3931-98
BETWEEN:
MAAS BINTHERA WEERABANGSA,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This matter came before me at Vancouver on Friday, October 9, 1998. The applicant was seeking a stay of a removal order that is to be executed on October 13, 1998 pending the determination of an application for leave and judicial review of a negative decision of the Post Determination Refugee Claimant's Class ("PDRCC").
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, arrived in Canada on December 16, 1995 and made his refugee claim four days later. In a decision dated September 7, 1997, the claim was denied. Subsequently, the applicant filed for review pursuant to the PDRCC; a decision was rendered on July 22, 1998. The application for judicial review of this decision is still pending. The applicant's as well as the respondent's counsel agreed that the main issue to be determined was whether or not there was a "serious issue".
[3] Counsel for Mr. Weerabangsa submits the officer that reviewed the PDRCC application, in rendering her decision, failed to adequately consider or take into account the allegation that if he was returned to Sri Lanka, he could face reprisals by the Sri Lankan government because they may perceive him to be a LTTE supporter and this could endanger his well being; he further submits that the only issue considered in assessing the applicant's situation focussed on whether or not Muslims are subjected to state prosecution in Sri Lanka and having concluded they were in no danger of prosecution, denied the applicant's review. Further that the PDRCC officer failed to take into account the additional documentary evidence filed in the application and as a result the totality of the evidence was not considered.
[4] A review of the decision and what are customarily referred to as the officer's notes were carefully weighed by the Court. In her opening summary under the heading "Risks Identified by the Applicant", the following is enunciated:
| The applicant submits that: |
| - that he is wanted by the Sri Lankan Authority, for an incident where he had been held captive by LTTE supporters. |
| - that he was forced to pay a bribe to the LTTE by extortion. |
| - that his trusted manager, was killed by the LTTE. |
| - that he suffered loss of his fishing vessel's, from the LTTE. |
| - that he believes that the authorities have suspected him as LTTE supporter. |
| - that as a Muslim, have been known to be supporters, recently, of the LTTE and therefore he is at risk on this basis from the authorities. He submits that he would be arrested, detained, tortured, by the authorities for his alleged support of the LTTE in Sri Lanka. [underlining added] |
[5] I am satisfied that the PDRCC officer did consider the applicant's concerns that some Muslims were suspected as supporters of the LTTE and that he may be at risk on that basis from the authorities.
[6] The officer also considered the decision of the CRDD that had concluded that this applicant was lacking in credibility; she also made reference in her analysis of the additional documentary evidence submitted and rejected it as being information that was available at the time of the hearing before the Refugee Board and even if it had been produced at that time, it would have had little bearing on the outcome since the determination and findings were based on total lack of credibility.
[7] There is ample jurisprudence that supports the proposition that an officer or tribunal does not have to specifically refer to all of the material and reject it with particularity so long as the court is satisfied that the evidence, verbal or written, which is of significance and is central to the issue has been considered.
[8] I am satisfied that the issues which are central to this application were addressed by the officer; satisfied that there is no arguable issue raised, the matter of irreparable harm or balance of convenience need not be addressed.
[9] The application is denied.
(Sgd.) "P. Rouleau"
Judge
Vancouver, British Columbia
9 October 1998
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-3931-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Maas Binthera Weerabangsa
v.
MCI
REASONS FOR ORDER OF ROULEAU, J.
dated October 09, 1998
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Douglas Cannon for the Applicant
Ms. Brenda Carbonell for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Douglas Cannon
McPherson, Elgin & Cannon
Vancouver, BC for the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg for the Respondent
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada