J.M. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 480 F.T.R. 193 (FC)

JudgeO'Keefe, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateOctober 23, 2014
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2015), 480 F.T.R. 193 (FC);2015 FC 598

J.M. v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 480 F.T.R. 193 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.024

J.M. (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4706-13; 2015 FC 598)

Indexed As: J.M. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

O'Keefe, J.

May 7, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant was a citizen of Sri Lanka, of Tamil ethnicity. His claim for refugee protection was denied by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Pertaining to the negative credibility findings, the Board found the applicant's allegations of risk in Sri Lanka due to his involvement in the active court case of his father's murder (allegedly by supporters of the Eelam People's Democratic Party) lacked credibility. The Board also analyzed the applicant's residual profile as a young male Tamil from the North (an area previously controlled by the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam), and determined that he had not established that he was of such a profile as to face a personal risk. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Aliens - Topic 1322

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Grounds - Well-founded fear of persecution - The applicant was a citizen of Sri Lanka, of Tamil ethnicity - His claim for refugee protection was denied by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board - The Board analyzed the applicant's residual profile as a young male Tamil from the North (an area previously controlled by the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE)), and determined that he had not established that he was of such a profile as to face a personal risk - On judicial review, the applicant submitted that in making that determination, the Board ignored evidence of harassment, detention, torture and cumulative persecution - The respondent's position was that the Board was entitled to prefer documentary evidence in its analysis - The Federal Court held that the Board's determination was reasonable - The Board determined that according to objective documentary evidence, the applicant did not allege and establish the special links to LTTE that might expose him to the higher risk on a balance of probabilities - In doing so, it did not mention all the evidence submitted by the applicant and it did not explain why it preferred documentary evidence over the applicant's evidence - The Board was not required to mention or give all evidence equal weight - "It is not my role to reweigh the evidence. It is well established in the jurisprudence that the Board is entitled to give more weight to the documentary evidence." - See paragraphs 63 to 67.

Aliens - Topic 1323.4

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Credible basis for claim - The applicant was a citizen of Sri Lanka, of Tamil ethnicity - His claim for refugee protection was denied by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board - Pertaining to the negative credibility findings, the Board found the applicant's allegations of risk in Sri Lanka due to his involvement in the active court case of his father's murder (allegedly by supporters of the Eelam People's Democratic Party) lacked credibility based on the applicant's evidence regarding his father's death, including port of entry notes, post-mortem report, letters from the applicant's family's lawyer and the court documents about the applicant's father's case - The Federal Court agreed with the respondent that the Board's credibility findings were reasonable - Although the evidence provided by the applicant established the father's death, it did not corroborate his alleged risk related to the case - The applicant was not able to provide details about the processing of the case - His lack of knowledge regarding the case was unreasonable - The errors made by the Board were not significant enough to render its decision on the applicant's credibility cumulatively unreasonable - See paragraphs 52 to 62.

Aliens - Topic 1331

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Evidence - [See Aliens - Topic 1322 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 26].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 26].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 26].

Kane v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 398; 437 N.R. 206; 2012 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 26].

Pathmanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 430 F.T.R. 192; 2013 FC 353, refd to. [para. 26].

Rajaratnam v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 135 N.R. 300 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Attakora v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1989), 99 N.R. 168 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Owusu-Ansah v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1989), 98 N.R. 312 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Cetinkaya v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 403 F.T.R. 46; 2012 FC 8, refd to. [para. 28].

Sawyer v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 548; 2004 FC 935, refd to. [para. 28].

Samarakkodige et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 192; 2005 FC 301, refd to. [para. 28].

Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 89; 98 A.C.W.S.(3d) 648 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Kanapathipillai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 222; 81 A.C.W.S.(3d) 859 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Thambirasa et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 97 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Ahortor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 65 F.T.R. 137 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Alfred v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 76 F.T.R. 231 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Rahman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 348 F.T.R. 69 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Mwaura v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 542; 2008 FC 748, refd to. [para. 37].

Duran Mejia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 203; 2009 FC 354, refd to. [para. 37].

Medarovik v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 40; 2002 FCT 61, refd to. [para. 37].

Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 397; 2012 FC 809, refd to. [para. 37].

Aguebor v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 240 N.R. 376; 49 Imm. L.R.(2d) 161 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Ambros v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 149; 78 A.C.W.S.(3d) 778 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Karanja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 341; 2006 FC 574, refd to. [para. 39].

Krishnapillai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 384; 2007 FC 563, refd to. [para. 39].

Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 538; 2008 FC 751, refd to. [para. 39].

Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 335 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Sheikh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1990] 3 F.C. 238; 112 N.R. 61 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Flores et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 566; 2010 FC 874, refd to. [para. 40].

Doka v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 257; 2004 FC 449, refd to. [para. 42].

Szucs v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 497; 100 A.C.W.S.(3d) 650 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 42].

Perez Burgos et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 946; 2006 FC 1537, refd to. [para. 44].

Akram v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 364; 2004 FC 629, refd to. [para. 65].

Counsel:

Caitlin Maxwell, for the applicant;

Alexis Singer, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Jackman, Nazami & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 23, 2014, before O'Keefe, J., of the Federal Court, who issued confidential reasons for judgment and judgment, dated April 21, 2015, and the following public reasons for judgment, dated May 7, 2015, at Ottawa, Ontario.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Pathinathar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 553 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • November 25, 2015
    ...Navaneethan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2015 FC 664 at para 58 [ Navaneethan ]; J.M. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 598 at para 65 [ J.M. ]). Finally, it is not the role of this Court to reweigh the evidence before the Officer ( Nebie v Canada (Citizenship and......
  • Selvarasu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 498
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 14, 2015
    ...at para 4; Lumaj v Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 763, at para 25) and findings regarding the applicant's residual profile ( M (J) v Canada (MCI), 2015 FC 598, at paras 63, 67). B. Did the RPD err in assessing the applicant's identity? [30] The Court's conclusion is that the RPD's findings regarding......
  • Sisay Teka v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 314
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • March 20, 2018
    ...its weighing of the evidence should not be reconsidered and substituted on judicial review (J.M. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 598 at para 48). A “high degree of deference” is owed to the RAD’s factual findings and assessment of the evidence (Koky v Canada (Citizenship and......
  • Ikeme v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 21
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • January 10, 2018
    ...RAD’s assessment of evidence should not be reconsidered and substituted on judicial review (J.M. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 598 a para [32] In these respects, the RAD’s finding was reasonable. (4) Letters [33] The RAD assigned no weight to an email and affidavit from th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Pathinathar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 553 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • November 25, 2015
    ...Navaneethan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2015 FC 664 at para 58 [ Navaneethan ]; J.M. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 598 at para 65 [ J.M. ]). Finally, it is not the role of this Court to reweigh the evidence before the Officer ( Nebie v Canada (Citizenship and......
  • Selvarasu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 498
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 14, 2015
    ...at para 4; Lumaj v Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 763, at para 25) and findings regarding the applicant's residual profile ( M (J) v Canada (MCI), 2015 FC 598, at paras 63, 67). B. Did the RPD err in assessing the applicant's identity? [30] The Court's conclusion is that the RPD's findings regarding......
  • Sisay Teka v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 314
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • March 20, 2018
    ...its weighing of the evidence should not be reconsidered and substituted on judicial review (J.M. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 598 at para 48). A “high degree of deference” is owed to the RAD’s factual findings and assessment of the evidence (Koky v Canada (Citizenship and......
  • Ikeme v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 21
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • January 10, 2018
    ...RAD’s assessment of evidence should not be reconsidered and substituted on judicial review (J.M. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 598 a para [32] In these respects, the RAD’s finding was reasonable. (4) Letters [33] The RAD assigned no weight to an email and affidavit from th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT