RASAMALAR JOSEPH Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND, 2011 FC 548
Opinion
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20110516 Docket: IMM-5389-10 Citation: 2011 FC 548 Ottawa , Ontario, May 16, 2011 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly BETWEEN: RASAMALAR JOSEPH Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] In 2009, Ms. Rasamalar Joseph claimed refugee protection in Canada based on her alleged fear of persecution as a Tamil woman from northern Sri Lanka . A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed her claim after finding an absence of credible evidence supporting it. [ 2 ] Ms.
Joseph maintains that the Board carried out a microscopic analysis of the evidence she presented. This caused it, she says, to dismiss and overlook evidence that reinforced her claim, and to arrive at an unreasonable conclusion. She asks me to overturn the Boards decision and order a new hearing before a different panel. [ 3 ] I cannot find, however, a basis for overturning the Boards decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. In my view, the Boards conclusion that Ms.
Josephs claim was unsupported by reliable evidence was reasonable. [ 4 ] The issue is whether the Boards treatment of the evidence was reasonable.
II. The Boards Decision [5] The Board found there was little evidence supporting Ms. Josephs account of events. [6] The Board was concerned about gaps in Ms. Josephs recollection of her voyage from Sri Lanka to Canada. She could notremember what airline took her from Sri Lanka to Singapore, or from Singapore to Japan, or from Japan to Canada. An agent providedher a new passport in Singapore but she could not remember what country had issued it, or whose name appeared on it. [7] The Board also noted that Ms.
Joseph had provided little documentation to show that she had lived in Sri Lanka until 1999 asshe had testified. She had no bank records, no ownership records for her house or business, and no drivers licence. She provided a birthcertificate (issued in 2004 with no photo) and a letter from a lawyer who had done legal work for her parents. The latter was clearly aform letter mostly boilerplate information, with only a few personal details. Ms. Joseph also provided an affidavit from a friend inToronto stating that Ms.
Joseph had been living in Sri Lanka, but the deponent had not seen her since 1992. [8] The Board also found some parts of Ms. Josephs narrative implausible. She stated that she had given her original passportand National Identity Card to the agent to mail to her. The Board wondered why she could not have mailed it herself, and why the agentwould take the risk of being found with two different travel documents. III. Was the Boards Treatment of the Evidence Reasonable? [9] The task of evaluating and weighing the evidence falls to the Board.
It is not my role to second-guess the Boards fact-findingunless its analysis was unreasonable. [10] Here, the Boards concerns about the evidence before it caused it to find that there was no basis on which to conclude that Ms.Josephs alleged fear of persecution in Sri Lanka was well-founded. Ms. Joseph argues that the Boards concerns related solely to issues atthe periphery of her refugee claim.
Even if the Board did not believe her story about how she got to Canada or what happened to heridentity documents, the fact remained that she was a Tamil woman from the north of Sri Lanka and the documentary evidence supportedher claim to be at risk of persecution if she returned there.
Her birth certificate proved her identity and ethnicity and that alone, she says,should have been enough to sustain her claim for refugee protection. [11] The Board must be careful not to dismiss a refugee claim on the basis that it disbelieves parts of the claimants testimony, orevidence that does not go to the core of the claim. Sometimes claimants embellish their stories, or they forget minor details. It isunreasonable for the Board to dismiss claims simply because they find evidence at the fringes not to be reliable or trustworthy.
Even ifthe Board finds some evidence not to be credible, it must go on to consider whether there remains a residuum of reliable evidence tosupport a well-founded fear of persecution. (See, e.g.
Seevaratnam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), (FC), 167 FTR 130, 88 ACW (3d) 650 (TD); Mylvaganam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 98ACWS (3d) 1089, [2000] FCJ No 1195 (FCTD) (QL); Kanesaratnasingham v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008FC 48). [12] On the other hand, sometimes the Boards concerns about the credibility or trustworthiness of the claimants evidence causes itto doubt the very essence of the claim.
In those circumstances, the Board need not look to general country condition evidence todetermine whether the claim was well-founded: Mathews v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1387 at para 7-8. That was the case here. The question, then, is whether the Board had a reasonable basis for its concerns about the evidence presentedby Ms. Joseph. [13] In my view, the Boards conclusion was reasonable in light of the evidence before it. Ms. Josephs account of her travel toCanada was, at best, incomplete. It cast doubt on her testimony relating to other aspects of her claim.
She lacked documentary evidencethat would have corroborated her claim to have lived and worked in northern Sri Lanka for many years. The letter from her parentslawyer and the affidavit from her friend were weak evidence of her life in Sri Lanka. And her 2004 birth certificate could have beenacquired outside Sri Lanka. There remained, of course, her oral testimony but, in key areas where one would have expected corroborativedocumentary evidence, (e.g., relating to her residence and business) none was offered.
The Board is entitled to make an adversecredibility finding in those circumstances: Adu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995), 53 ACWS (3d) 158, [1995]FCJ No 1114 (FCA) (QL), at para 1.
[ 14 ] In my view, the Boards treatment of this evidence and its conclusion were reasonable. Taking account of its doubts about Ms. Josephs narrative of events and the paucity of evidence confirming that she had actually been resident in northern Sri Lanka during the relevant time period, the Boards conclusion that her claim was not supported with reliable and trustworthy evidence was clearly open to it. IV. Conclusion and Disposition [ 15 ] Having found that the Boards conclusion was reasonable on the evidence, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated. JUDGMENT THIS COURTS JUDGMENT is that 1. The application for judicial review is dismissed. 2. No question of general importance is stated. James W. OReilly Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5389-10 STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSEPH v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto , ON. DATE OF HEARING: April 19, 2011 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: OREILLY J.
DATED: May 16, 2011 APPEARANCES : John Grice FOR THE APPLICANT Alex C. Kam FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Davis & Grice Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto , Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Loading document…