Date: 20040322
Docket: IMM-643-03
Citation: 2004 FC 424
Ottawa, Ontario, March 22, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
NIRANJAN SELVARASA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Niranjan Selvarasa ("Applicant") seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board"), reasons dated January 9, 2003. In that decision, the Board found the Applicant not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
ISSUE
[2] Is the Board's conclusion as to the Applicant's lack of credibility patently unreasonable?
[3] For the reasons below, I will answer in the negative to the question and I will therefore dismiss this application.
BACKGROUND
[4] The Applicant is a 23 year old Tamil who is a citizen of Sri Lanka. His alleged fear of persecution is based on his race and impugned political opinions. He would have been forced to work for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for a few days, would have been arrested by them and detained on a couple of occasions. The Applicant would also have been forced to paste wall posters for the Eelam People's Democratic Party (EPDP) on one occasion. The first incident would have happened in October 1994, with his last detention which included chilly smoke and beating taking place in October 2001. When the Applicant was released on November 5, 2001, he decided to leave the country. With the help of an agent, the Applicant left on December 1, 2001, transited through Colombo, Singapore and Hong Kong before arriving in Canada on April 12, 2002 and making his claim on April 15, 2002.
[5] The Board found that the Applicant did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution because he lacked credibility. The Board described in great detail the different inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions that it found in the Applicant's testimony.
ANALYSIS
[6] It is trite law that the standard of review on a credibility issue is patent unreasonableness. Having looked at the detailed list of inconsistencies and contradictions found by the Board, I conclude that the Board's finding of a lack of credibility is well founded and supported by the evidence. The Board gave the Applicant many opportunities to explain those deficiencies and it found that the Applicant did not give satisfactory explanations with regard to those deficiencies.
[7] It is the function of the Board to evaluate the satisfactory character of certain explanations provided by the Applicant (Muthuthevar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 207 (T.D.) (QL), Castro v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 787 (T.D.) (QL), Wen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 907 (C.A.) (QL)). It is also up to the Board to use its discretion to evaluate if the story of the Applicant is plausible and to make an adverse finding of credibility on that basis (Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 732 (C.A.) (QL).
[8] The Applicant argues that the Board omitted certain information in its decision. The content of the decision is not being contested for stating false information but for not being as detailed as the Applicant would have liked it to be. For example, the Board had no obligation to specify the details about the physical abuse suffered by the Applicant.
[9] The Board did make a mistake in using the wording "his sibling and parents" on page 2 of its decision, the transcripts clearly showing the parents did not go to live in Vanni with the Applicant's siblings, but this error is without consequence on the general conclusion of lack of credibility, especially since the rest of the paragraph shows clearly that the Board understood very well that the Applicant stayed with his parents while his brothers and sisters moved to Vanni.
[10] As to the Red Cross letters confirming the Applicant's detention on October 15, 2001 and the village headman letter, it belonged to the Board to evaluate their probative value. I cannot say the Board's findings on this issue is patently unreasonable.
[11] In conclusion, I find no reason to disturb the Board's finding that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection based on the Applicant's lack of credibility. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
[12] The parties declined to submit a question of general importance and none will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance is certified.
______________________________
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-643-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: NIRANJAN SELVARASA v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 10, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER THE HONOURABLE
AND ORDER: MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
APPEARANCES:
Rachel Benaroch FOR APPLICANT
Edith Savard FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Rachel Benaroch FOR APPLICANT
Montreal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec FOR RESPONDENT