Federal Court Decisions

     IMM-3223-96

B E T W E E N:

     SUPRAMANIAM RAVI

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

HEALD, D.J.:

     This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "C.R.D.D.") dated August 6th, 1996, wherein it was determined that the applicant was not a Convention Refugee.

THE FACTS

     The applicant testified that he left the north of Sri Lanka because the Liberation Tigers (L.T.T.E.) harassed him and made him fear for his life. Upon his arrival in Columbo, he was arrested twice. In 1995, he was interrogated and beaten. He was also suspected of being involved in the bombing of an oil refinery in Colombo. He suspects that the police will connect him to the bombing because he did not report to the police as required after the bombing. The applicant left Sri Lanka on October 23, 1995 with the help of an agent. Since his arrival in Canada, he has learned that his wife and children may be encountering problems in Sri Lanka due to his departure.

THE DECISION OF THE C.R.D.D.

     The C.R.D.D. found the applicant not to be a Convention Refugee because it concluded that the applicant's evidence was not credible or trustworthy. It found that the applicant's evidence as to the hardships endured by him in Sri Lanka was implausible having respect to the documentary evidence before the C.R.D.D.

ANALYSIS

     The well accepted framework within which it has been established that the Court should determine the credibility of evidence is set out in the decision of the British Colombia Court of Appeal in the case of Faryna v. Chorny¹:

The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of a story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place in those conditions.

     More recent jurisprudence has established, additionally, that adverse findings of credibility must be supported by evidence on the record before the Tribunal which the Tribunal must weigh as to reliability and cogency. At least some of the evidence before the Tribunal must support the Tribunal's negative credibility finding. While the Tribunal may believe documentary evidence in preference to the applicant's oral testimony, in such cases the Tribunal must state in clear and unmistakable terms why it preferred that evidence².

     In this case, the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were based on the implausibility of the applicant's oral testimony when considered in the context of the documentary evidence before the Tribunal. In my view, the tribunal's findings are well supported by the documentary record and the Tribunal was justified in making adverse credibility findings with respect to the applicant's oral testimony.

     For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

CERTIFICATION

     Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to Section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree that this is not a case for certification. Accordingly no question will be certified.

                         Darrel V. Heald

                         Deputy Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

June 26, 1997

__________________

¹      [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354

²      Okyere-Akosah v. M.E.I., May 6, 1992, Court File No. A-92-91.