Date: 19980617
Docket: IMM-2835-97
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH PRIYA DHARSHAN SINGARAYER
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD, J.
1� Despite the able argument of counsel for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that the Refugee Division committed any reviewable error of law in rejecting the applicant's claim to Convention refugee status.
2� In its decision, the Refugee Division found that the conditions in the north of Sri Lanka were such that the applicant had good grounds to fear prosecution by reason of his membership in a particular social group, young Tamil male, should he return there, but that Colombo presented a reasonable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the applicant, given his particular circumstances.
3� The Refugee Division made its analysis in accordance with the tests set out in Rasaratnam v. Canada, [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.) and in Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada, [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.).
4� In reaching its decision, the Refugee Division stated that it had carefully considered all the evidence adduced at the hearing and the post-hearing written submissions and documentary evidence provided by counsel and written observations submitted by the Refugee Claim Officer.
5� In my view, the conclusions of the Refugee Division were reasonably open to it based on the totality of the evidence adduced. The fact that some of the documentary evidence was not mentioned in its reasons is not fatal to its decision. It did consider and weigh the total evidence. Where the tribunal has evidence before it which support its conclusion, this Court will not readily interfere with the weight assigned to that evidence.
6� The applicant also claimed that the tribunal had failed to explain why it preferred one country report to another report by the same agency which was released some six months later. Both reports were before the tribunal and both are referred to in its reasons. The tribunal considered both documents and did take into consideration the specific circumstances particular to persons such as the applicant, as recommended in the second report. In my view, the tribunal did not ignore the later report neither did it rely on the earlier report to the exclusion of the later report. The tribunal also considered other documents, including a February 1996 report from the Canadian High Commission in Colombo.
7� Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"John D. Richard"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
June 17, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-2835-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSEPH PRIYA DHARSHAN SINGARAYER
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 16, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD, J.
DATED: JUNE 17, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Lorne Waldman
For the Applicant
Ms. Diane Dagenais
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Waldman and Associates
281 Eglinton Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1L3
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980617
Docket: IMM-2835-97
Between:
JOSEPH PRIYA DHARSHAN SINGARAYER
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER