Liyanage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Liyanage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-03-01 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 136 File numbers IMM-1305-00 Decision Content Date: 20010301 Docket: IMM-1305-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 136 BETWEEN: DHARA MANEL LIYANAGE (also known as Geetha Manel PERERA LIYANAGE) Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER HENEGHAN J. [1] Ms. Dhara Manel Liyanage (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board") dated February 10, 2000. The Board determined the Applicant not to be a Convention refugee. [2] The Applicant is national of Sri Lanka. She left that country on October 6, 1999 and arrived in Canada on October 9, 1999, at Montreal, Quebec. She claimed refugee status upon her arrival. The basis of her claim was fear of persecution on the basis of imputed political opinion. [3] The Board found that the Applicant's evidence was not credible. It found that there was no credible evidence that she had ever been arrested. It also found an absence of credible evidence that she would be at risk if she returned to Sri Lanka. [4] The Applicant claims that the Board erred in making these credibility findings and argues that the Board improperly based its findings upon its assessment of her demeanour, an unreasonable assessment of her evidence about screaming during her detenti…
Read full judgment
Liyanage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-03-01 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 136 File numbers IMM-1305-00 Decision Content Date: 20010301 Docket: IMM-1305-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 136 BETWEEN: DHARA MANEL LIYANAGE (also known as Geetha Manel PERERA LIYANAGE) Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER HENEGHAN J. [1] Ms. Dhara Manel Liyanage (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board") dated February 10, 2000. The Board determined the Applicant not to be a Convention refugee. [2] The Applicant is national of Sri Lanka. She left that country on October 6, 1999 and arrived in Canada on October 9, 1999, at Montreal, Quebec. She claimed refugee status upon her arrival. The basis of her claim was fear of persecution on the basis of imputed political opinion. [3] The Board found that the Applicant's evidence was not credible. It found that there was no credible evidence that she had ever been arrested. It also found an absence of credible evidence that she would be at risk if she returned to Sri Lanka. [4] The Applicant claims that the Board erred in making these credibility findings and argues that the Board improperly based its findings upon its assessment of her demeanour, an unreasonable assessment of her evidence about screaming during her detention by the police in Sri Lanka and the unreasonable microscopic examination of apparent inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the Applicant in the port of entry notes, her Personal Information Form and her sworn evidence before the Board. [5] However the Applicant frames her arguments, they all relate to a common factor and that is the Board's assessment of her credibility. [6] The assessment of credibility is the key mandate of the Board. Such findings can be subject to judicial interference in limited circumstances. According to the Tribunal Record, there was evidence before the Board to support its conclusions. I refer to the words of Justice McKeown in Castro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 787, at paragraph 2: Although I might have reached a different determination with respect to the first reason it was reasonably open to the panel to find the Applicant was not credible in respect of this area of his testimony. As was stated in Brar. v. M.E.I., May 29, 1986 when the Applicant raises only a question of credibility and the weight of the evidence it affords no legal basis upon which this Court could properly interfere with the panel. ORDER [7] In the circumstances, the application for judicial review is dismissed. [8] Counsel did not propose a question for certification. "E. Heneghan" J.F.C.C. Toronto, Ontario March 1, 2001 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record COURT NO: IMM-1305-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: DHARA MANEL LIYANAGE (also known as Geetha Manel PERERA LIYANAGE) Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2001 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J. DATED: THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2001 APPEARANCES BY: Ms. Vania Campana For the Applicant Ms. Marissa Bielski For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lewis and Associates Barristers & Solicitors 223 Main St. N. Brampton, Ontario L6X 1N2 For the Applicant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date: 20010301 Docket: IMM-1305-00 Between: DHARA MANEL LIYANAGE (also known as Geetha Manel PERERA LIYANAGE) Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca