Date: 20050506
Docket: IMM-2332-04
Citation: 2005 FC 614
BETWEEN:
VALLIPURAM NITHIYANANTHASOTHY
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 February 12, 2004, wherein the Board found the applicant not to be 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] Vallipuram Nithiyananthasothy (the applicant) is a citizen of Sri Lanka. He claims a well-founded fear of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality and membership in a particular social group.
[3] The Board found the applicant not to be a credible witness, and denied his claim for refugee status. The Board gives the following reasons in support of its decision:
- The applicant testified that he applied for his National Identity Card (NIC) in 2000, and that it took 6-8 months to obtain, however the NIC shows that it was issued on May 21, 2002. The applicant was asked why his NIC indicates his address in Jaffna when he claimed to have been a resident in Colombo. The applicant stated his NIC was processed in accordance with his place of birth. This was not consistent with the documentary evidence which indicated that NICs are processed in accordance with place of residence.
- The applicant testified that he was released from prison in 1998 with the assistance of influential elected officials. This information was not included in his Personal Information Form (PIF). The Board is of the opinion that this is significant information that deserved to be mentioned. This omission detracts from his credibility.
- The applicant testified that he was arrested and beaten by hand in 1998. He could not provide more specifics despite the Board's prompting. His narrative does not say that he was physically abused in 1998. Further, his narrative indicates that he was detained and beaten in 2000. His information was inconsistent as to whether weapons were used in the 2000 beatings. At question 38 of his PIF, the applicant noted that he was arrested only on two occasions. He did not mention his arrest and torture in 1998 and 2000. His explanation that he was trying to keep the story short and that he included all the important matters was not accepted.
- The applicant stated that due to his fear of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) he applied for immigration to Canada in 1995. His application was actually made in March of 1997. He explained this discrepancy by saying that he gave the application to his lawyer in 1995. The applicant was evasive when asked why he or his lawyer did not follow up on this application in a timely manner, and explained only that he was under stress at the time.
- The applicant provided evidence to a visa officer in 1998 that all of his business interests were in Jaffna. His PIF states that he was conducting business only in Colombo since he left Jaffna in 1990.
[4] Upon hearing counsel for the parties and reviewing the Court file, it is my opinion that the above reasons are generally supported by serious elements of proof which include the applicant's own testimony, his PIF and his NIC. Further, in Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the panel's perception that an applicant is not a credible witness can amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which the application could be based.
[5] 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.)). In the case at bar, the inconsistencies and implausibilities were duly put to the applicant and were substantial enough to justify the Board's well-reasoned rejection of his claim.
[6] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 6, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2332-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: VALLIPURAM NITHIYANANTHASOTHY v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 7, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: May 6, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Preevanda K. Sapru FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Michael Butterfield FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MAX BERGER & ASSOCIATES FOR THE APPLICANT
Toronto, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Date: 20050506
Docket: IMM-2332-04
Ottawa, Ontario, this 6th day of May 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
BETWEEN:
VALLIPURAM NITHIYANANTHASOTHY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated February 12, 2004, wherein the Board found the applicant not to be 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, is dismissed.
JUDGE