CAT/C/60/D/699/2015
2.2
The complainant arrived in Canada on 17 October 2009 on board the MV Ocean
Lady, a ship suspected of having links with LTTE. On 23 October 2009, the complainant
applied for refugee status.
2.3
On 9 October 2013, 1 the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and
Refugee Board rejected the complainant’s refugee application. The Division considered that
the complainant had not provided any persuasive evidence that he would be perceived as an
LTTE supporter. The Division considered that the complainant’s statements that he had
been interrogated or persecuted by Sri Lankan authorities were inconsistent and lacked
credibility. In particular, it found the complainant’s statement that he was allowed to escape
from the refugee camp where he had been held and interrogated after paying a bribe to an
army official incompatible with his allegation that the army had searched for him following
his escape. The complainant also stated that he was able to renew his passport on 10 August
2009 and to pass through security checkpoints using this passport without experiencing any
problems. The Division noted that, had the complainant been identified as a “risk profile”
under the guidelines issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), he would not have been issued a passport or allowed to leave the
country.
2.4
On 24 February 2014, the Federal Court rejected the complainant’s application for
leave and judicial review of the negative decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Following a successful application for a stay of removal, the complainant was allowed to
remain in Canada and to file an application for a pre-removal risk assessment. In his
application, the complainant argued that his brother had fought with LTTE between 1992
and 1997 and was killed in December 1997, and that his family was considered a “martyr
family”. His pre-removal risk assessment application was rejected on 28 April 2015. The
complainant stated that he feared that if he had revealed that information, he would be
immediately detained and deported. The pre-removal risk assessment officer found this
explanation unconvincing. Additionally, the officer noted that the complainant had not been
harmed in the past because of his brother’s alleged affiliation 18 years ago and that that
circumstance did not put him at risk of detention or mistreatment by Sri Lankan security
forces.
2.5
The complainant filed an application for leave and judicial review of the negative
decision of the pre-removal risk assessment, which was dismissed on 11 September 2015.
On 29 July 2015, the Federal Court rejected the complainant’s application for a judicial stay
of his removal. The Court considered that the complainant’s late submission regarding his
brother’s involvement with LTTE was unjustified and that the events were alleged to have
occurred 18 years ago. The Court also noted that the complainant’s parents, wife and
children, who shared the same family ties, continued to live in Sri Lanka without any
reported difficulty.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that his removal to Sri Lanka would expose him to a risk of
being tortured or killed, in violation of article 3 of the Convention, because he is a young
Tamil male and failed asylum seeker who arrived in Canada aboard the MV Ocean Lady, a
ship which Sri Lankan authorities associate with LTTE sympathizers and which has been
condemned publicly by Sri Lankan authorities as being an “LTTE operation”. He would
therefore be accused of having “terrorist sympathies”. This risk is also based on his past
detention for suspected links with LTTE and because he is considered to be a member of a
“martyr family”, as his brother was killed fighting for LTTE.
3.2
The complainant maintains that he is a target of the police and the military in Sri
Lanka because of his ethnic origin and because he witnessed human rights abuses by
government forces that occurred in northern Sri Lanka during the civil war. He adds that he
would also be threatened by extremist followers of the current repressive regime in Sri
Lanka.
1
2
There is no information in the file to explain why the Immigration and Refugee Board took four years
to decide on the complainant’s asylum request.