Date: 19980821
Docket: IMM-4383-97
BETWEEN:
SASEEKALA SINNAKKUDDY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED, J.:
[1] The applicant seeks an order setting aside a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Board"). That decision found her not to be a Convention Refugee. The decision is challenged on two grounds: (1) the Board did not assess the evidence of her past experiences cumulatively; (2) the Board did not properly evaluate the evidence concerning her experiences in Colombo and relied on outdated documentary evidence.
[2] The first argument relies on the Board's analysis of the applicant's experiences in Vavuniya and, then, in Colombo, seemingly applying a separate analysis to each:
| The claimant's testimony suggests that authorities in Vavuniya were satisfied she was not a Tiger. Otherwise, it is inconceivable that they would have sent her on her way after a one hour interview with a pass which allowed her to go to Colombo. Her experience in Vavuniya, even with inappropriate touching and abusive language, is insufficient to satisfy the objective element of the fear claimed at that time or at the present time. |
| The claimant's testimony persuades me that her experiences during three weeks in Colombo are insufficient to satisfy the objective component. The harassment and threat were well short of persecutory treatment. I am satisfied that the authorities did not believe she was a Tiger operative (spy). It is inconceivable that, considering the high level of scrutiny in place to protect Colombo from Tiger atrocities, she would not have been detained if authorities believed she was a Tiger. ... |
[3] I have not been persuaded that the Board's manner of expressing itself in the part of its decision set out above demonstrates an error on its part in analyzing the evidence. The Board stated that it accepted that the applicant faces persecution in the north of Sri Lanka, albeit at the hands of the LTTE, not the government security forces. It then asserts that the issue before it is whether there is an IFA for her in Colombo. The focus of its attention, then, is on the situation in Colombo and the kind of treatment it can be anticipated the applicant would face there if she returned. In that light, the treatment she received in Vavuniya, albeit at the hands of government security forces can fairly be treated separately from that which she might expect in Colombo.
[4] The significant part of the Board's finding in the paragraphs quoted above is the conclusion that the security forces did not consider the applicant to be a member of the LTTE and therefore she would not be the subject of persecutory actions.
[5] I turn next to the Board's analysis of the evidence respecting the treatment she could expect to receive in Colombo. With respect to her past experiences, the Board refers to a bribe that she and her uncle paid the police as being a matter of corruption not persecution. It did not refer to her evidence that she had been assaulted (had a gun pointed at her neck with a threat that she would be shot). The Board did recite this fact in its description of the evidence, but not in that portion of its decision where it analyzed that evidence.
[6] The Board in assessing the type of treatment she might expect to receive, should she return to Colombo, noted that the Sri Lankan government had established a Special Investigations Unit to look into allegations of police corruption. The Board concluded "With safeguards in place to curtail extortion and other abuses, I am satisfied that there is not a reasonable chance of abuse amounting of persecution".
[7] The Board referred to "recent information" from the UNHCR:
| In considering conflicting documentary evidence, I find recent information from the UNHCR to be most reliable. Item 6 of this report satisfies me that there is not a reasonable chance of persecution for someone who, like the claimant, has valid identity documents. I rely on the current evidence from the UNHCR and am persuaded that Colombo is a viable IFA. [Footnotes omitted.] |
[8] The UNHCR document to which reference is made is dated March 1997 and is entitled UNHCR Position concerning the Return of Rejected Asylum Seekers to Sri Lanka. Paragraph 6 thereof reads:
| In general, rejected asylum-seekers are not singled out, either at the airport or at a later stage. On the other hand, due to the ongoing conflict and security concerns, identity verification of individuals does take place in the course of general security checks and in principle the persons concerned are treated in a fair and humane manner by the authorities. Detentions for security checks are monitored by human rights institutions. Citizens, including rejected asylum-seekers who have been deported, can avail themselves of the services and support of national human rights bodies and institutions. |
[9] The Board refers to a UNHCR report under cover of letter dated September 18, 1996 (document dated September 9, 1996). An Immigration and Refugee Board document, dated March 1997, however, notes that the British Refugee Council in February of 1997 expressed concern about continuing reports of arbitrary arrests, detentions, torture and ill treatment of Tamil detainees, as well as poor prison conditions, and the lack of facilities. It notes that the Council expressed concern that internal flight alternative may be difficult, and in many instances impossible to apply in Sri Lanka, particularly for individual refugees or small families. There is also documentation, dated March 14, 1997, which notes that by late 1996 it was clear that the armed conflict in Sri Lanka was far from over and that the human rights situation throughout the country remained grave.
[10] Counsel for the respondent agrees that the evidence concerning the situation in Sri Lanka is "mixed". The question I must answer is whether the Board ignored the negative evidence when finding that the applicant was not a convention refugee. On reflection, I cannot so conclude. The Board had before it both the negative and the positive. The Board refers specifically to the UNHCR March 1997 document mentioned above. While the document addresses the situation that exists for "Rejected Asylum-Seekers", when they return to Sri Lanka, paragraph six does address the situation of citizens generally. The Board assessed the applicant's particular situation. One of the applicant's arguments was that as a returning asylum-seeker she would be singled out for abuse. The conclusions drawn by the Board that, on return, the applicant could expect to face identity checks, detention was possible but it would be brief since she could establish her identity, and her fear of abuse at the hands of the police was a fear of police corruption and extortion, not abuse amounting to persecution are supportable by the evidence. I cannot find a ground that would justify a setting aside of the Board's decision.
[11] For the reasons given this application must be dismissed.
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 21, 1998