Kumarasiri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Kumarasiri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-07-05
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 747
File numbers
IMM-2843-00
Decision Content
Date: 20010705
Docket: IMM-2843-00
Ottawa, Ontario, the 5th day of July, 2001
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
HALGAMUWA HEWAWASAM Kumarasiri
GUNAWARASANA Padmini
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision rendered on April 10, 2000 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicants are not Convention refugees, is dismissed.
J.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
Date: 20010705
Docket: IMM-2843-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 747
Between:
HALGAMUWA HEWAWASAM Kumarasiri
GUNAWARASANA Padmini
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision rendered on April 10, 2000 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
[2] The main applicant, Mr. Hewawasam, and his wife, Ms. Gunawarasana, are aged 44 and 37, respectively. Both are citizens of Sri Lanka. Ms. Gunawarasana bases her claim on that of her husband, who alleges he was persecuted in his country by reason of his political opinions and his membership in the Signalais group, which is associated with the members of the Tamil community and thus involved in the civil war.
[3] The Refugee Division dismissed the applicant's claim on the ground of his lack of credibility, particularly in regard to his association with the United National Party.
[4] Notwithstanding the clear and concise presentation by Ms. Claudia Gagnon, who argued only on the Refugee Division's assessment of the facts and was able to identify a number of problems or errors in the decision in question, I do not think the intervention of this Court is warranted.
[5] Indeed, after a review of the evidence, it appears that the numerous omissions, contradictions and improbabilities noted by the panel in the male applicant's testimony are generally well founded. Without totally endorsing the panel's assessment of the facts, however, its finding of no credibility in the applicant is sufficiently supported by the record and seems reasonable to me.
[6] In the circumstances, the perception by this specialized panel, the Refugee Division, that the applicant was not credible concerning a fundamental part of his claim amounts in fact to the conclusion that there was no sufficient credible basis on which to justify this claim (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at page 244).
[7] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
J.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 5, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: IMM-2843-00
STYLE: KUMARASIRI HALGAMUWA HEWAWASAM et al. v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 21, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: JULY 5, 2001
APPEARANCES:
CLAUDIA GAGNON FOR THE APPLICANTS
MARIE-CLAUDE DEMERS FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
CLAUDIA GAGNON
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC FOR THE APPLICANTS
MORRIS ROSENBERG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA FOR THE RESPONDENT