Date: 19980710
Docket: IMM-3540-97
BETWEEN:
SENKATHIRCHELVY RATNESHWARAN
RUMESH RATNESHWARAN
AKSHAYA RATNESHWARAN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROTHSTEIN, J.
[1] In this judicial review denying the applicants' Convention refugee claim, the respondent concedes the panel's credibility findings are not supportable. However, the respondent still defends that the panel's internal flight alternative finding.
[2] The applicants say the IFA finding is, at least in part, based on the panel's credibility findings and because the credibility findings are not supportable, the IFA finding also cannot stand.
[3] The panel found the applicants had an IFA in Colombo. In its credibility determination, the panel was of the opinion that the principal applicant, contrary to her evidence that she was in Colombo only from 1987 to 1992 and then went back to the north of Sri Lanka, lived in Colombo from 1987 to 1996 when she and her children came to Canada. The applicants say it is material to the panel's IFA determination that it believed the principal applicant lived in Colombo from 1987 to 1996 rather than in the north from 1992 to 1996. Had the panel believed that she lived in the north from 1992 to 1996 there is no assurance its IFA determination would have been the same.
[4] The respondent says the IFA determination was made on undisputed facts and that if it were based on the panel believing the principal applicant was living in Colombo throughout, this would have been "front and centre" in its reasons.
[5] I have carefully examined the panel's IFA determination. The panel says that the principal applicant spent most of her adult life in Colombo. In itself this statement does not indicate what period of time the panel was considering. However, other statements indicate that the panel only considered the period admitted by the principal applicant. The panel noted the principal applicant studied in Colombo from January 1987 to December 1991, and that she worked there until February 1992, after she had been married in January of 1992. The panel referred to the principal applicant's testimony that her son was born on January 20, 1993 in Colombo.
[6] In its IFA reasons, the panel does not refer to any time that the principal applicant denies she was in Colombo. Moreover, the panel refers to a 1996 UNHCR document which says "... removed the cautionary provision from two years back that failed asylum seekers be returned only if family or friends are permanently established in Colombo". Such a reference would have been unnecessary had the panel, in its IFA determination, assumed the principal applicant had been living in Colombo until she came to Canada.
[7] I am satisfied that in making its IFA determination the panel based its decision on undisputed facts. This decision was independent of its credibility findings.
[8] I am satisfied that there is no reviewable error with respect to the panel's IFA determination.
[9] The judicial review must be dismissed
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
July 10, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3540-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: SENKATHIRCHELVY RATNESHWARAN ET AL. |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: JULY 10, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.
DATED: JULY 10, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Lorne Waldman
For the Applicants
Mr. Kevin Lunney
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jackman, Waldman & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
281 Eglinton Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1L3
For the Applicants
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980710
Docket: IMM-3540-97
Between:
| ENKATHIRCHELVY RATNESHWARAN |
RUMESH RATNESHWARAN
AKSHAYA RATNESHWARAN
Applicants
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER