Digests

Ramachanthran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-3606-02

2003 FCT 673, Russell J.

28/5/03

28 pp.

Judicial review of CRDD decision applicant not Convention refugee on basis had internal flight alternative (IFA)-- Applicant's, son's refugee claims heard at same time, on same evidence--Son found to be Convention refugee, but not applicant--Applicant from northern part of Sri Lanka-- Husband's brother married Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's (LTTE) leader's sister--Husband in Canada while H&C application pending, after refugee claim dismissed-- Applicant, teacher, taught four years in Colombo; moved to Valvettithurai--Claiming approached by LTTE to encourage students to join LTTE--Sometimes requested students attend LTTE meetings, read LTTE materials--Applicant's son, daughter harassed, pressured by LTTE to join movement, forcibly taken to LTTE hideouts, forced to attend indoctrination sessions, do hard labour--Applicant forced to translate documents from Tamil to Sinhala for Sri Lankan army--Threatened by LTTE--Moved to Jaffna--Even there, harassed by both LTTE, army--Left for Canada, leaving daughter behind--Main issue IFA--CRDD panel found applicant had IFA, even though issue had not been marked off on CRDD File Screening Form and Disclosure Order sent to applicant--Application allowed--Standard of review whether patently unreasonable for panel to conclude reasonable, on balance of probabilities, for applicant to avail herself of IFA, namely city of Colombo--Notice given by panel herein sufficient, as issue of IFA raised once panel accepted documents establishing applicant had lived in Colombo for period of time--Applicant had time to address issue, or ask for further adjournment to deal with issue--Counsel did not request further adjournment, did not object to panel questioning applicant with respect to Colombo as IFA, addressed issue of Colombo as IFA in oral submission--Onus on applicant to establish more than mere possibility of persecution in areas identified as potential IFA; if applicant fails, open to applicant to establish not reasonable to expect applicant to avail himself of IFA: Rasaratnam v . Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.)--Here, CRDD panel stated applicant's son would not be accompanying mother to Sri Lanka as son Convention refugee--However, panel failed to consider practical effects of separation of parents, children in determining whether objectively reasonable IFA exists: Sooriyakumaran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 156 F.T.R. 285 (F.C.T.D.)--In not considering impact of finding applicant has IFA on relationship with son, panel committed reviewable error.