Date: 20000628
Docket: IMM-1645-99
BETWEEN:
UTHAYAKUMARY RAMAMOORTHY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAWSON J.
[1] The applicant is a forty-six year old citizen of Sri Lanka who claims Convention refugee status by reason of race, religion, membership in a particular social group and political opinion. She asserts fear of persecution at the hands of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ("LTTE").
[2] In determining that the applicant was not a Convention refugee, the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "CRDD") stated as follows:
| The Refugee Division determines that Uthayakumary RAMAMOORTHY is not a "Convention refugee" for the following reason: the claimant is not credible. It has not been demonstrated by credible evidence that she was harassed by the Tigers and the army as she alleges and that she would be at risk of future persecution if she returned to Sri Lanka. |
[3] The panel explained its conclusion that the claimant was not credible by stating:
| 1. In her answers, the claimant, on more than one occasion, gave confusing and contradictory answers. There were as well several implausibilities. |
[4] The panel set out six instances where it found the applicant"s evidence to lack credibility or to be implausible.
[5] Applicant"s counsel argued strenuously that the CRDD erred in determining that the applicant"s testimony was not credible or plausible, and erred in failing to consider the applicant"s evidence that she was sexually harassed by the Sri Lankan Army.
[6] Nothwithstanding the able argument of counsel for the applicant, having reviewed the material contained in the record before the CRDD, particularly the transcript of the proceedings before it, I am of the view that there was evidence before the CRDD from which it could reasonably conclude that the applicant was not credible.
[7] While counsel for the applicant argued orally before me that the "most important" evidence before the CRDD was the evidence of sexual harassment such that it should have been specifically dealt with by the CRDD, I cannot conclude either from the applicant"s oral testimony or from her Personal Information Form that this evidence was key to her case as was asserted by counsel.
[8] The fact that written reasons do not summarize or reference all of the evidence which was introduced does not of itself constitute a reviewable error of law. The reasons of the CRDD demonstrate a grasp of the pertinent issues and of the relevant evidence, and its conclusions were, in my view, reasonably open to it on that evidence.
[9] Therefore, I have concluded that there is no basis for intervention by the Court.
[10] Counsel for the applicant proposed the following question for certification:
| In the absence of a finding to impeach the credibility of the applicant as a whole, can the CRDD Panel ignore evidence arising only from the Personal Information Form of the applicant or fail to mention such evidence in the reasons? |
[11] Counsel for the respondent opposed certification of this question on the ground that no such question arises from the facts and issues in the case at bar because the CRDD concluded in no uncertain terms that the applicant lacked credibility.
[12] I accept the submission of counsel for the respondent that the proposed question for certification does not arise from the facts of this case. Accordingly no question will be certified.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
June 28, 2000