Date: 20000622
Docket: IMM-1899-99
BETWEEN:
SINNATHAMBY SATHEESKUMAR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] This is an application for leave and judicial review of a decision dated March 29, 1999, wherein the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") determined that Sinnathamby Satheeskumar (the "Applicant") is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka and is twenty-four years of age. He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ("LTTE") and the Sri Lankan authorities. This fear is based on his membership in a particular social group, namely that he is Tamil.
[3] In his Personal Information Form ("PIF"), the Applicant alleged, inter alia, that, while working part time in a video store, he was asked by the LTTE to duplicate propaganda videos. Fearing retribution, he copied four tapes. The store was subsequently raided and he believes two of these tapes were seized by the Sri Lankan authorities. The Applicant claims that because of the two missing LTTE propaganda tapes, the Sri Lankan police and/or military would persecute him if he were to return to a government controlled area.
[4] Following the hearing before the Board, the Applicant was found not to be a Convention refugee. The Board noted the war conditions in Sri Lankan but concluded that there was no objectively valid basis for the Applicant"s fear of persecution against any group or authority in Sri Lanka. The Board also found the Applicant"s claim implausible and contradictory.
[5] The Applicant submits that the Board did not consider the totality of the evidence before determining that he was not a Convention refugee. Specifically, the Applicant argues that the Board rejected his refugee claim based solely on one aspect of his claim.
[6] In the Applicant"s PIF, he describes a number of incidents on which he founded his Convention refugee claim. Despite this, the Board focussed only on his experience involving the duplication of the propaganda videos. In its decision, the Board did not address any of the other aspects of his claim.
[7] In my opinion, the Board had an obligation to look at the totality of the claim as well as the totality of the evidence in determining whether the Applicant is a Convention refugee. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is granted.
[8] Counsel for the parties have seven days from their receipt of these reasons to submit a question for certification.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
June 22, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-1899-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: SINNATHAMBY SATHEESKUMAR |
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
| DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J. |
DATED: THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2000
| APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Robert Lepore |
| For the Applicant |
| Mr. Godwin Friday |
| For the Respondent |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: c/o Robert Leporte |
Barrister & Solicitor
4000 Steeles Avenue West
Suite 201
Woodbridge, Ontario
L4L 4V9
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000622
Docket: IMM-1899-99
BETWEEN:
| SINNATHAMBY SATHEESKUMAR |
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |