Date: 19980924
Docket: IMM-3965-97
BETWEEN:
VIJAYAPACKIALUXMY KANESANATHAN
SINDUJHA KANESANATHAN
NEVETHA KANESANATHAN,
Applicants,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J:
[1] This application is for the judicial review, pursuant to subsection 82(1) of the Immigration Act ("the Act")1, of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Board") dated August 19, 1997, wherein the Board determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
1. Facts
[2] The applicant was born in Jaffna, Sri Lanka, in 1966. She married in 1987. The Tigers controlled the area where she and her husband lived and the latter was forced to work for them. She claims that the Tigers constantly harassed them. Finally, her husband fled to Colombo. When the Tigers discovered that her husband had fled, they harassed her on a regular basis. She fled to Colombo on May 20, 1995. A week later, the local police questioned her about the whereabouts of her husband and her association with the LTTE. She fled to Canada in June 1995.
2. Decision of the Board
[3] The Board identified six different issues, namely her identity, her credibility, the availability of an Internal Flight Alternative ("IFA"), her fear of detention, the reasons for not leaving with her husband and the way she managed to leave herself for Colombo. The Board found "that the claimant's evidence was not credible or trustworthy" and it was "not satisfied that the evidence has established that there is a reasonable chance the claimant would be persecuted if she were to return to her country of origin". She explained that she did not leave earlier with her husband because "they all could not leave together" and "she thought that her husband's problem would disappear". The Board did not find her explanation to be satisfactory. It did not find it reasonable that she "would choose to remain behind to deal with what she alleged to be an unreasonable and ruthless LTTE". It found the claimant's documents "problematic". It did not accept her explanation as to why "she described herself as a student". It did "not believe her story of arrest in Colombo" and did "not believe that she received the treatment she alleged at the hands of the LTTE".
[4] The Board also found from the weight of the evidence available to it that the claimant did have a viable IFA. The evidence before the Board indicates "that not all Tamils who arrive in Colombo are necessarily assumed to be LTTE supporters and, therefore, suspect". The Board said it lacked of persuasive evidence "that persons, like the claimant, a Tamil mother with two children, are unable to safely settle in Colombo". It concluded that it "would not be unduly harsh for her and her children to reside peacefully among those large numbers of her fellow citizens of Tamil ethnicity who do so".
3. Disposition
[5] In spite of the very able presentation of the applicant's counsel, I cannot come to the conclusion that the decision of the Board was unreasonable. In matters of credibility, it is not for the Court to set aside the Board's conclusions and to impose its own appreciation. As to the Internal Flight Alternative, the Board canvassed the documentary evidence and drew its own conclusions. The conclusion of the Board that the applicant and her children may reside peacefully with her fellow citizens of Tamil ethnicity in Colombo is clearly not unreasonable.
[6] Consequently, this application for judicial review is denied. In my view, there is no question of general importance to be certified.
OTTAWA, Ontario
September 24, 1998
Judge
__________________