Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20050901

Docket: IMM-4263-04

Citation: 2005 FC 1175

Ottawa, Ontario, September 1, 2005

PRESENT:    The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly

BETWEEN:

SRIKANTHAN PATHMANATHAN

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]     Mr. Srikanthan Pathmanathan claims to fear returning to his native Sri Lanka because of the mistreatment he previously received at the hands of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan police. An immigration officer assessed the risk that Mr. Pathmanathan might face if he returned to Sri Lanka and concluded that it was minimal. Further, she found that, based on current conditions in Sri Lanka, he could live safely in Colombo.

[2]     Mr. Pathmanathan argues that the officer failed to consider the most current information about conditions in Sri Lanka, particularly as they applied in Mr. Pathmanathan's specific circumstances. He asks me to order a re-assessment by a different officer. However, I can find no basis for overturning the officer's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.

I.         Issue

[3]    Did the officer fail to consider relevant evidence?

II.      Analysis

[4]     I can overturn the officer's decision only if it is not supported by the evidence.

[5]     Mr. Pathmanathan argues that the officer failed to consider the fact that he had previously been arrested in Colombo and had to pay a bribe to secure his release. He also submits that the officer ignored recent evidence suggesting that Tamils continue to be subject to arrest and detention in Colombo, that the LTTE continue to try to recruit Tamils in Colombo, and that his experience as a goldsmith is of particular interest to the LTTE because they raise funds for their activities by trafficking in gold.

[6]     As I read the officer's decision, all of these allegations were considered. The officer reviewed evidence relating to current conditions in Sri Lanka, including the activities of the LTTE, and specifically considered the risk that Mr. Pathmanathan might suffer as an expert goldsmith.    She also accepted that he had been previously arrested in Colombo.

[7]     Mr. Pathmanathan further argues that the officer relied on out-of-date sources and, accordingly, failed to take account of the fact that the President of Sri Lanka had imposed a state of emergency in November 2003. Thereafter, peace talks were suspended and violations of the cease-fire increased in frequency.

[8]     Again, I see no basis for that argument. The officer specifically considered the most recent report of the U.S. Department of State published just weeks before her decision. She also cited a report from BBC News that had been released just a week earlier.

[9]     I agree with Mr. Pathmanathan that risk assessment officers have a duty to ensure that their analyses are reasonably current. However, applicants also bear a burden to ensure that their applications are based on present conditions by filing supplementary materials when appropriate. Further, if there has been a recent change, applicants must show how it would affect them personally: Pathmanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 6, [2005] F.C.J. No. 4 (F.C.) (QL). In this case, even if the officer's reasons had failed to take account of current conditions, Mr. Pathmanathan would have to satisfy me that the omission prejudiced his application. He has not done so.

[10]                        Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated. Counsel for the respondent requested that the style of cause be amended to read the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration instead of the Solicitor General of Canada. I will grant that request.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:

1.       The application for judicial review is dismissed;

2.       No question of general importance is stated;

3.       The style of cause is amended to read, as the respondent, The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

"James W. O'Reilly"