Digests

Raveendran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-657-02

2003 FCT 49, Beaudry J.

21/1/03

23 pp.

Judicial review of decision by Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) determining applicants not Convention refugees--Applicants, Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka, first claimed refugee status in 1996--When claim denied in 1999, went to United States of America in May 2000--Returned to Canada in August 2000 and presented new refugee claim--Second claim denied on ground of res judicata--Whether CRDD committed error of law or unreasonable finding of fact justifying intervention of Federal Court--During three years between decisions in first and second claims, great deal of additional evidence became available with respect to conditions in Sri Lanka--Many of specific events of which applicants have submitted reports took place between hearings of first and second claims-- Panel's assertion applicants providing absolutely no credible or trustworthy evidence supporting claims that situation worsened, without justification, cannot stand--Certified Record of CRDD contains much documentary evidence available to panel, which shows attacks against civilians and destruction of property particularly frequent and destructive in Jaffna peninsula, where most Sri Lankan Tamils live-- Evidence from variety of sources, not just one or two interest groups--Open to panel to not accept evidence as credible or trustworthy, but such finding would seem patently unreasonable without ample justification indicating at least perfunctory glance given to mounds of evidence supporting applicants' arguments--Panel's conclusion not supported by totality of evidence before it--Panel's conclusion applicants not fitting profile of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) supporters has relatively little meaning without at least some explanation of notion of "profile"--Evidence suggests Sri Lankan authorities do not make concerted attempt to "profile" who does or who does not support LTTE--Documentary evidence shows arrests made against persons simply suspected of supporting LTTE in any manner--No reference made to any profile--In light of panel's incomplete analysis and reasoning, findings by panel with respect to evidence cannot stand--Second claim pointing out that since first claim, Sri Lanka began enforcing 1998 Immigrants and Emigrants Act only in 2000--Alleging Tamils returning to Sri Lanka upon deportation from countries where sought asylum targeted for arrest, usually convicted, sentenced to at least one year in prison--Applicants not required to prove all Sri Lankan Tamils returning to country following failed asylum claims arrested and detained--Need only to demonstrate reasonable probability could be unfairly targeted by Immigrants and Emigrants Act on Convention grounds--Since hearing of first claim, evidence has come to light with respect to selective enforcement and treatment of those charged and convicted under Act--To state Act law of general application ignores reality of use as tool of persecution, as disclosed by evidence offered by applicant--Application allowed.