Ottawa, Ontario, February 1 2006
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARRINGTON
BETWEEN:
RAJALUCKSHMY MANOKERAN
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. and Mrs. Manokeran are Tamils from Sri Lanka. Their claim for refugee status in Canada was turned down. This is a judicial review of that decision.
[2] Despite the valiant efforts of the applicants' counsel, I must dismiss this application.
[3] The applicants made three major points:
a) The Board was wrong in saying that they had to have experienced physical harm in order to advance a claim;
b) The Board did not properly consider state protection;
c) The Board's conclusion that they were not credible was patently unreasonable.
[4] Mr. Manokeran, as principal claimant, alleged a whole series of incidents going back to at least 1990, which constitute harassment, if not outright persecution. The Karuna Tamil Group asked him to support their organization. When he refused, he was threatened with death. In 1999, he was arrested by the police because he had samples of salt in his possession, which they took to be chemicals. During interrogation, he was beaten. During this time, the claimants visited family in the United States and in Canada but did not seek asylum. They returned to Sri Lanka where a government-aligned Tamil Group tried to extort money from them.
[5] They thought the matter would improve with the cease fire, but in 2003 and 2004 they were threatened by armed men something like fifteen times. They paid nothing, and were not harmed.
[6] Their Canadian son also put in a sponsorship application, which has been turned down because of Mrs. Manokeran's ill health. That matter is currently under administrative appeal.
[7] The Board considered the key issues to be credibility, state protection, fear of persecution, and the failure to claim refugee status elsewhere. I agree.
ANALYSIS
[8] Although the Board noted that the applicants had never been physically harmed, I do not take the Board to have said that that was a condition precedent to persecution. Rather, the Board took the view that the incidents did not happen at all. I have been asked to reweigh the evidence as to credibility. There is ample evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion. Certainly, there was no patently unreasonable finding of fact.
[9] As to state protection, Mr. Manokeran admitted that he lacked the courage to seek out the police.
[10] The Board was also entitled to take into account the failure of the applicants to seek asylum in the United States to be a reflection of a lack of subjective fear. Mr. Manokeran explained that he did not want to pursue matters in the United States because he was there on a visitor's visa, and because his son was trying to sponsor them into Canada.
[11] Applicants often seek refugee status notwithstanding the undertaking in their visas to leave when their time runs out. The Board was not acting in a capricious manner in refusing to accept the explanation offered.
[12] There is no general question of importance to certify.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, Immigration and Refugee Board, dated 6 June 2005, RPD File Nos. AA5-0031 and AA5-0032 is dismissed.
"Sean Harrington"
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3924-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: PONNIAH MANOKERAN
RAJALUCKSHMY MANOKERAN
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: January 26, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER: HARRINGTON J.
APPEARANCES:
| Viken G. Artinian
|
|
| Edith Savard
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Joseph W. Allen and Associates Barristers & Solicitors Montreal, Quebec
|
|
| John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|