Miral v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-3392-97
Muldoon J.
12/2/99
5 pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD decision applicant not Convention refugee on ground of lack of credibility-Applicant, Tamil from Sri Lanka, claimed Convention refugee status based on well-founded fear of persecution-Alleged numerous arrests and death threat by police authorities because husband in hiding, fearing arrest because helped suspected LTTE member-Application allowed-Hearing before single CRDD member with applicant's consent, as herein, practice to be discouraged-Perhaps cases should not be heard until at least two-member panel can be formed-CRDD's finding applicant's testimony concerning her detention not credible because simplistic and lacked detail imposed too high standard regarding amount of detail required-CRDD did not find credible applicant's testimony regarding alleged arrest of husband and subsequent release three days later upon payment of fairly small bribe-In doing so, CRDD has engaged in speculation as to regular or normal police procedures, and had no evidence before it on which to base such conclusions, regardless of how obvious they may appear to CRDD-Lack of corroborating evidence regarding applicant's detention significant factor in negative determination of claim, but cannot be linked to applicant's credibility, in absence of evidence to contradict allegations: Ahortor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 65 F.T.R. 137 (F.C.T.D.)-Not open to CRDD to require documentary evidence to support applicant's uncontradicted testimony regarding her arrests and detentions-Tribunal erred when it engaged in speculation about police arrest practices without any foundation in evidence-Also erred in dismissing applicant's testimony regarding arrest as not credible due to lack of supporting documentary evidence-Simply unrealistic to require refugee claimant to have with her paperwork and documents detailing arrest history in country from which she just fled.