Date: 19981216
Docket: IMM-5464-97
BETWEEN:
ROHINA MANEL JAYASUNDARA,
ANURADHI OOLU JAYASUNDARA,
PULASTHI JAYASUNDARA
and BUDDHI JAYASUNDARA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.:
[1] The applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("CRDD") dated November 18, 1997 which determined that they were not Convention Refugees.
[2] The applicants are Rohina Manel Jayasundara, a 48-year-old woman, and her three children, daughter 17-year-old Anuradhi Oolu, and two sons 15-year-old Pulasthi and 9-year-old Buddhi. The four are citizens of Sri Lanka. The adult claimant, henceforth referred to as the principal claimant, agreed to have all four claims heard jointly. The applicants seek Convention refugee status on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the Sri Lankan army and police by reason of their membership in a political social group, namely the wife and children of a member of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna party ("JVP") who is being sought by the Sri Lankan authorities for his imputed political opinion and activities.
[3] The two grounds for the CRDD's rejection of the applicants' Convention refugee status are lack of credibility of their claim and no well-founded objective fear of persecution by Sri Lankan authorities. With regard to the first ground, the CRDD states the following in their decision:
| There were several internal inconsistencies between the PIF and oral testimony. For example, [1] in the PIF the claimant states that while the people in civilian clothes who questioned her and searched the house following the JVP"s annual general meeting on July 6, 1996 were from the Sri Lankan security forces, they did not actually identify themselves. During examination-in-chief however, the principal claimant clearly stated that they told her they were from the army. As well, [2] when asked by counsel whether she had any idea of what was in the two files taken when the house was searched, the principal claimant testified that "they might have thought it important but I don"t know. Maybe it was something to do with the organization". Yet in her PIF, which was accepted by the panel as sworn testimony, she said that "in their search they found some of the papers and files that belonged to the JVP". In another inconsistency, [3] the PIF of the principal claimant indicates that she did not give any information about her husband to the men who attended at her house, except to say that he had gone to relatives. Yet during oral testimony she asserted that she did tell them quite detailed information about the meeting including the fact that although her husband had been in attendance, he had not organized it as that had been done by headquarters in Colombo. She admitted to also informing the "questioners" that posters had been given out during the meeting. She said that she gave all this information only because they threatened her. She also said they asked her if she had taken part in the meeting and that if she had helped the JVP, the whole family would be killed. When asked by the RCO why she had admitted to giving all this information about her husband, she replied that she was scared about her life and her children"s lives and that she wanted them (the alleged security forces) to leave before her children came home [from school]. |
| Yet another inconsistency that created grave doubts in the panel"s mind, [4] was the principal claimant"s purported visit to a lawyer in Colombo. This information was originally left out of the PIF and was added through emendation by counsel at the beginning of the hearing. During examination-in-chief, the principal claimant said that a lawyer declined to help her because of her JVP connections, yet according to the letter presented to the panel by counsel at the outset of the hearing, the attorney-at-law who forwarded the letter dated 3 June 1997 clearly states in the final paragraph that "as she was not in a position to identify or name so-called army personnel, I could not take any legal action". This differs sharply from the version given in oral testimony and when combined with the other credibility issues raised in connection with this claim, inclines the panel to give no weight to the principal claimant"s testimony in this matter of the lawyer. |
| The panel finds these cumulative inconsistencies problematic. They not only show a lack of credibility but point to an evasiveness that leads the panel to ponder about the overall truthfulness of the principal claimant and to question the integrity of the story as a whole. |
[4] The first of these alleged inconsistencies concerns the identity of the individuals who questioned the principal claimant on July 13, 1996. In her Personal Information Form (PIF), the principal claimant states that "people in civilian clothes who I am certain were members of the Sri Lanka security forces came to our house and asked for my husband." During her viva voce examination, the principal claimant refers to this same event as: "ÿsome people came claiming to be from the army, they came and said that we are from the army, they were in civilian dresses. And they came and asked, where's your husband?"
[5] The CRDD interprets the principal claimant's PIF statement to mean that the principal claimant's certainty of the identity of the intruders did not come from anything the intruders said. The principal claimant's statement during her examination however suggests that she was informed of the intruder's identity. This, the CRDD found, creates an inconsistency. The applicants' claim is that the PIF statement is not inconsistent with the intruders identifying themselves.
[6] It is not the role of this Court to determine which interpretation it prefers rather, this Court must determine whether the CRDD's finding of fact in this matter was reasonable or not. I find that it is not unreasonable. There was a reasonable basis for the CRDD to find that it was inconsistent for the principal claimant to have made the two statements and that this inconsistency went to her credibility.
[7] With regard to the second alleged inconsistency, the contents of the files taken from the applicants' dwelling, the principal claimant states in her PIF that "in their search they found some of the papers and files that belonged to the JVP." On examination, the principal claimant said the following: "I can't exactly tell you what is inside the files but I thought I saw two files. One was a pink file and the other one was blue." And, in response to the question, "What is your idea of what was in these files?" the principal claimant responded, "They might have thought there may be something important but I can't exactly tell you what. I don't know anything. I don't know where these files were." In response to the question, "Who did they belong to?" the principal claimant answered, "It was definitely inside my house but I don't, it may be some files of the organization." In response to the RCO's question, "ÿdid you know what the papers were?", the principal claimant answered, "I knew it, they were, the JVP paper is a very small paper so I knew it was JVP papers ÿWhat I meant by papers was the newspapers." The RCO then asked, "And did they find some files that belonged to the JVP?" and the principal claimant answered, "I don't know, he took, they took two files and I suspect that they might have found some JVP but I can't tell you that." In an effort to clarify the inconsistency, the RCO said: "I'm reading from your Personal Information Form, and it says, in their search they found some of the papers and files that belonged to the JVP. So when I read your Personal Information Form, it sounds like they, that these files belonged to the JVP." The principal claimant responded: "I suspect but I can't ÿ otherwise they shouldn't have taken anything it was not important. So it may be that. That is what I meant."
[8] It is clear from the above transcript that the CRDD had some reason to doubt the credibility of the principal claimant who gave varying accounts of the contents of the files taken from her dwelling. I see no basis to interfere with this finding.
[9] The third alleged inconsistency concerns the information the principal claimant divulged about her husband. In her PIF, the principal claimant states that "I told them that he had gone to one of his relatives, and that he would be back in the evening ÿ They asked me for the names of people who had attended the meeting on July 6. I told them I did not know ÿ Before they left they threatened me saying that they would destroy me and my family if I did not help them find my husband." On examination, the principal claimant states: "And I told them that he went to a relative's house and then they asked whether there was a meeting held here and who took part in the meeting. And who organized the meeting and why was it held and who took part. And I told them there was a meeting held but it was not my husband who organized it, however he did take part in that meeting. And I told him that is the people who came from Colombo organized this meeting and they are the people who held the meeting."
[10] Because the principal claimant's PIF statement is not as detailed as her response on examination, it does not necessarily create an inconsistency. However, in my view, the CRDD could find, on the evidence, that this difference in detail went to the principal claimant's credibility. Therefore I will not interfere with the CRDD's finding of fact on this point.
[11] With regard to the fourth alleged inconsistency, the principal claimant's purported visit to a lawyer, the CRDD was entitled on the evidence to make the finding that it made.
[12] The second issue in dispute concerns the documentation in support of an objective fear of persecution by the Sri Lankan authorities. The relevant portion of the CRDD's decision reads as follows:
| In the alternative, even if the panel accepted the principal claimant"s evidence as credible, the panel finds that her fear of persecution is not objectively founded. |
| The documents before us outline that the Sinhalese are a majority in Sri Lanka. They control the government, the military, the police and the greater part of the Island with the exception of the northern and some areas in the eastern provinces which are still under the control of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). With the end of the JVP terrorism, life has been largely peaceful in the South. |
| While the country is considered a long standing democracy with a multi-party system of government and an independent media, there have been periods when civil liberties have been interfered with and on occasion curtailed. For example, the JVP was banned during the 1980s and was only returned to official status in 1991 after its prinicipal [sic] leaders were detained or killed and the remaining supporters renounced terrorist activities. Thus, during the period that the principal claimant attests to persecution on the part of the PA-dominated government toward JVP supporters, the documents are silent. The Documentation, Information and Research Branch (DIRB) was canvassed for current information on the treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities of family members suspected of JVP activities and their response was that while information on this topic is scarce, what is available suggests that there is no indication of such current Sri Lankan policy. The information indicated that in the 1990s there have been no records of any cases of ill-treatment towards JVP supporters or their families. Indeed, a report prepared by the Canadian mission in Colombo states there is "no evidence of the JVP currently being a threat to Tamil or Sinhalese citizens". The DIRB document does however quote a September 1995 Reuters news agency report that states "the JVP plans a campaign of peaceful opposition to the government"s devolution plan. |
No other objective documentary evidence was put before the panel that verifies this JVP action or that indicates the government has retaliated in any way. In the present circumstances, we have no persuasive evidence that JVP supporters are being persecuted by the Sri Lankan authorities. The principal claimant"s testimony runs contrary to the available documentation and on a balance of probabilities, we do not believe her.
[13] The applicants submitted much documentation in support of their claim. The CRDD, however preferred to rely on The Documentation, Information & Research Branch (DIRB) which states that in the 1990s, no records of any cases of ill-treatment towards JVP supporters or their families existed; and a report prepared by the Canadian mission in Colombo which consulted various sources and states that there is no evidence of the JVP currently being a threat to Tamil or Singhalese citizens. Clearly, there was evidence to support the CRDD"s finding on this point. Whether the CRDD should have come to a different conclusion is another matter. Perhaps another panel would have "weighed" the documentary evidence differently. However, I have not been persuaded that the CRDD made a reviewable error in concluding that the applicants did not have a well founded fear of persecution.
[14] For these reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Ottawa, Ontario "MARC NADON"
December 16, 1998 JUDGE