Date: 19971124
Docket: IMM-687-97
BETWEEN:
KALANITHY THANAPALAN and
ATCHUTHAN THANAPALAN,
Applicants,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD D.J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated February 4, 1997. By that decision, the Board determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees.
FACTS
[2] The principal applicant herein is a citizen of Sri Lanka. She is a Tamil of the Hindu religion. She is married and has a two year old son (the "minor applicant").
[3] The principal applicant testified that she and her husband left northern Sri Lanka to escape from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ("LTTE") who were constantly demanding money and labour. They told the authorities at the army checkpoint that they were going to Colombo to work. The husband was detained since he was suspected of having ties with the LTTE. The principal applicant along with her son and her mother were allowed to proceed. In Colombo, the principal applicant was detained and questioned by the police concerning her husband's involvement with the LTTE. She was accused of spying for the LTTE and again threatened with arrest. She was detained for two days, then released on payment of a bribe with no reporting conditions.
THE BOARD'S DECISION
[4] The Board considered whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Colombo was a possibility for the applicants. After noting that the applicants were detained and released upon payment of a bribe and upon referring to the documentary evidence that 90% of Tamils detained for questioning were released within two days, the Board concluded that an IFA was a viable alternative for these applicants. The Board did not believe that the principal applicant was viewed as a major suspect since no reporting conditions were attached to her release. Additionally, these applicants had access to the support and the resources of other members of their family in Sri Lanka.
ANALYSIS
[5] I have concluded, in the circumstances of this case, that the Board's finding that these applicants have an IFA in Colombo is reasonable. The principal applicant was not a police target. She was detained for only two days and released upon payment of a bribe. These practices are well supported by the documentary evidence and form a proper basis for the Board's conclusion.1 Also, the fact that she was not interrogated and was released without conditions supports the Board's conclusion that she was not a suspect. The finding of an IFA in Colombo is supported by the evidence and the relevant jurisprudence.
CONCLUSION
[6] For the above reasons, the within application for judicial review is dismissed.
CERTIFICATION
[7] Neither counsel suggested the certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree with counsel that this is not a case for certification.
Darrel V. Heald Deputy Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 24, 1997
__________________1 See for example U.N.H.C.R. Information Update on Sri Lanka, Tribunal Record, Vol. 1, September 9 1996, Page 169.