IMM-2680-96
B E T W E E N:
NELUFER MUMTAZ KADEER
Applicant
- 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 (the Tribunal) dated July 15, 1996. By that decision, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
THE FACTS
The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka. She is of the Muslim faith. She was employed in Columbo as a secretary to the Acting Chief Justice of Sri Lanka. She testified that on April 8, 1995, a member of the L.T.T.E. Tigers visited her at her residence. She said that the L.T.T.E. had kidnapped her brother and threatened to kill him as well as herself if she did not make available to them two court files relating to pending criminal cases against two members of the L.T.T.E. Even though she had access to the files in question, she reported to the police on the advice of her father. The police suggested she participate in a scheme to entrap the L.T.T.E members. However, she declined because of her fear that her life would be endangered. The police then threatened her to the effect that if she did not co-operate with them, she would be arrested and charged with participation in an L.T.T.E underground network. She then went into hiding and with the assistance of an agent hired by her father, she fled to Canada.
THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
The panel of the Tribunal made adverse findings of credibility based on its view that the applicant's evidence was not consistent with "authoritative documentary evidence respecting communal relations." Accordingly, the panel concluded... "that on a balance of probabilities, the claimant's testimony could only be deemed implausible and not credible or trustworthy". The panel's finding of implausibility is based on five inferences:
| 1) that the L.T.T.E would not seek to recruit the applicant as she was a Muslim; |
| 2) that the L.T.T.E would not have known that the applicant had access to criminal files given the relationship between Muslims and the L.T.T.E; |
| 3) that the L.T.T.E would not mount a complicated kidnapping and blackmail scheme to obtain court files given that the legal system in Sri Lanka is essentially functional, fair and public; |
| 4) that it was implausible that the acting Chief Justice would have been handling all pending criminal trials; and |
| 5) that the police would not have threatened the applicant with arrest on charges of being part of the L.T.T.E underground due to the fact that the Muslim community was an ally of the government. |
ISSUE
Did the panel commit reviewable error by drawing the inferences which led to its conclusion that the applicant's claim was not credible because of its findings of implausibility supra.
ANALYSIS
The jurisprudence clearly establishes that this Tribunal is a specialised tribunal empowered to draw inferences from the evidence adduced and to make findings of credibility with respect to that evidence. As a consequence, the reviewing Court will not interfere unless the Tribunal's inferences are patently unreasonable. The onus is upon the applicant to demonstrate that the inferences drawn by the Tribunal could not reasonably have been drawn1. In Aguebor, Marceau, J.A., speaking for the Federal Court of Appeal, stated:
| "There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, the findings are not open to judicial review." |
My perusal of this record persuades me that the Tribunal's inferences and findings herein were reasonably open to it on this record. Accordingly, the within application for Judicial Review is dismissed.
CERTIFICATION
Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree with counsel. Accordingly no question is certified.
"DARREL V. HEALD"
D.J.
Toronto, Ontario
June 11, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-2680-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: NELUFER MUMTAZ KADEER
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 9, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: JUNE 11, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Jack C. Martin
For the Applicant
Mr. Kevin Lunney
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Jack C. Martin
Barrister & Solicitor
Refugee Law Office
481 University Avenue
Suite 603
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2E9
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-2680-96
Between:
NELUFER MUMTAZ KADEER
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 Aguebor v. MEI ((1993) 160 N.R. 315 at p. 316