IMM-2936-96
B E T W E E N:
SEVVANTHINATHAN ARIYAKUMARAN, MANGAYATKARASI
ARIYAKUMARAN and GOPIKRISHNA ARIYAKUMARAN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D.J.:
This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board where the Board determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees. The applicants are a Sri Lankan family, father, mother, son. They are Tamils from Northern Sri Lanka. The father is the principal applicant. He stated that he personally experienced difficulties with the Sri Lankan security forces, the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), the Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
The father owned two businesses in Sri Lanka, a tea store and a bakery. In August of 1985 he was assaulted at his tea store and the premises were destroyed. It was closed shortly thereafter. In July of 1988 he was beaten once more. On October 5, 1989 the EPRLF and the IPKF arrested his wife. She was released when the father turned himself in. He was detained for eight days until his wife paid a bribe to obtain his release. In June of 1994 the wife was again arrested and detained for 3 days. She was released upon payment of a bribe by her husband. The principal applicant further testified that his bakery was raided on May 5, 1995. Quantities of flour were found there and as a result, he was again arrested and detained. In August of 1995, the adult applicants went into hiding with their two year old son. They fled to Canada a month later. They paid a bribe in order to safely escape through the International Airport at Katunayake.
THE BOARD'S DECISION
The Panel made adverse findings of credibility with respect to the evidence of both adult applicants. At page 12 of the Record, it stated:
| "The panel does not believe the story of either claimant. We do not believe that the principal claimant was ever arrested. If the police had suspected the claimant of being a L.T.T.E. member or supporter, they could have arrested him on their first raid at the lodge and would not have released him." |
My perusal of this record persuades me that having regard to the totality of evidence, the panel was entitled to come to this conclusion.1
The Panel then went on to reject the applicant's' claim on the basis that they had an internal flight alternative in Colombo. The Federal Court of Appeal has held that for an applicant to establish that an internal flight alternative does not exist, that applicant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that a serious possibility of persecution exists for that applicant, throughout the country.2 The Panel, after reviewing the facts, concluded that the authorities in Sri Lanka had taken important steps to improve human rights practices. They had also prosecuted human rights violators. The rate of detention had dropped in Colombo, and identity checks of transient Tamils has almost been eliminated. Accordingly, I think it was reasonably open for the Panel to conclude, as it did, that random police checks and arrests are insufficient support for the well-foundedness of the applicant's fear.
For the foregoing reasons, the within application for Judicial Review is dismissed.
CERTIFICATION
Neither Counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to the provisions of Section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree that this is not a case for certification.
"Darrel V. Heald"
D.J.
Toronto, Ontario
June 12, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-2936-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: SEVVANTHINATHAN
ARIYAKUMARAN, MANGAYATKARASI
ARIYAKUMARAN and
GOPIKRISHNA ARIYAKUMARAN
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 10, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: JUNE 12, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. David B. Cranton
For the Applicants
Ms. Diane Dagenais
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. David B. Cranton
Barrister and Solicitor
2279 Queen Street East
2nd Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4E 1G5
For the Applicants
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-2936-96
Between:
SEVVANTHINATHAN
ARIYAKUMARAN, MANGAYATKARASI
ARIYAKUMARAN and GOPIKRISHNA
ARIYAKUMARAN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 Compare Medina v. Canada (1990) 12 Imm L.R. (2d) 33 (F.C.A.).
2 See Thirunavukkarasu v. M.E.I., [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A.).