Date: 20030305
Docket: IMM-1957-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 273
Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday, the 5th day of March, 2003
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
SOMASUNARAM APPULINGAM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "CRDD"), dated April 2, 2002, wherein the CRDD determined that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The Applicant is a Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka from the Jaffna peninsula. He claims a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the army, the police, pro-government militants and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
[3] In the present case, the Applicant testified to persecution both in the North of Sri Lanka, and in Colombo while he was resident there just prior to fleeing for Canada in September 2000. The CRDD did not accept the persecution claim in Colombo and, therefore, found the Applicant could continue to reside there.
[4] The problems in the decision in the present case concern the findings of fact and credibility in rejecting the persecution claim in Colombo. In its brief and ambiguous oral reasons, the CRDD said this:
When asked by the panel whether you were ever targeted specifically, you referred only to the detention that took place in September of 2000 and this was only in response to a direct question. You had not previously, in your Personal Information Form or in your earlier testimony, said that you were the specific target of this September 2000 incident which resulted in your arrest. Based on the way this targeting allegedly took place in September of 2000, I find that perhaps this targeting was enhanced or fabricated to support your refugee claim. (Applicant's Application Record, p. 6) [Emphasis added]
[5] I find that, contrary to the CRDD's factual finding concerning "specific targeting" in Colombo, indeed, the Applicant did speak to this issue in his PIF. Thus, I find that the CRDD made a critical error in fact.
[6] In addition, as no specific reasons are given for not believing the Applicant's evidence given in his oral testimony as emphasised in the passage quoted above, I find that the CRDD erred in law (see Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.) at 305).
[7] Thus, I find that the CRDD's decision was made in material reviewable error and, thus, is patently unreasonable.
ORDER
Accordingly, the CRDD's decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.
"Douglas R. Campbell"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-1957-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: SOMASUNARAM APPULINGAM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: CAMPBELL, J.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Raoul Boulakia
For the Applicant
Ms. A. Leena Jaakkimainen
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Raoul Boulakia
Barrister and Solicitor
45 St. Nicholas Street
Toronto, Ontario
M4Y 1W6
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20030305
Docket: IMM-1957-02
BETWEEN:
SOMASUNARAM APPULINGAM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER