Date: 20060315
Docket: IMM-3053-05
Citation: 2006 FC 336
Ottawa, Ontario, March 15, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
GERMAN EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ TORRES
ROCIO DELPILAR BLANCO BERNAL
CAMILA ANDREA BLANCO BERNAL
NICOLAS RODRIGUEZ BLANCO
SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ BLANCO
(a.k.a. SANTIAGORODRIGUEZ)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The applicants comprise a family. The principal applicant, German Eduardo Rodriguez Torres, his wife, Rocio Del Pilar Blanco Bernal, and their daughter, Camila Andrea Blanco Bernal, are citizens of Colombia. The younger children, Nicolas Rodriguez Blanco, and Santiago Rodriguez Blanco are citizens of the United States. The family claimed refugee status in Canada, relying on the claim of Mr. Torres, which was based on a fear of persecution at the hands of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) as a result of his involvement with the Liberal Party of Colombia. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board refused the claims of the two younger children on the basis that, as citizens of the United States, they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. No issue is taken with that finding. In relation to Mr. Torres, his wife and the eldest child, the board dismissed their claims. They seek judicial review of that decision.
[2] Mr. Torres' first encounter with the FARC occurred when he was spending an afternoon with his father, his fiancée (now his wife) and her daughter. Around the same time, he began receiving threats from the FARC because of his involvement with the Liberal Party of Colombia and his establishment of a youth group while in university. Additionally, the FARC attempted to persuade him to assign houses, in a public housing project over which the construction company for which he worked had some control, to people approved by the FARC.
[3] Mr. Torres claimed that he moved several times in an effort to avoid the FARC. Eventually, he and his wife moved to a home owned by his wife's uncle, a successful businessman, who was also targeted by the FARC. The uncle advised them to go to the police but they refused because they were concerned about tipping off FARC spies.
[4] Shortly before Christmas in 1997, Mr. Torres received a letter on FARC-EP letterhead stating that he had been tried in absentia by a military tribunal of the FARC and had been found to be a legitimate military objective for the crime of supporting a political oligarchy and corrupt politicians. Mr. Torres and his wife decided to leave Colombia and on December 28th, they flew to the United States on visas that had been obtained several months earlier.
[5] Mr. Torres and his wife worked in the United States for six years. Their work visas expired on November 15, 2004 and cannot be renewed. Their claim for asylum in the United States was rejected in May 2001.
[6] Mr. Torres claimed that two years after his departure from Colombia, his father received threatening phone calls from the FARC. The caller allegedly referred to Mr. Torres. His parents moved to another house in another city and did not receive any further calls.
[7] In 2003, Mr. Torres and his son travelled to Colombia because his mother was terminally ill. They stayed for approximately one month. Three days after their departure, his mother died and the entire family returned to Colombia and stayed for one week to attend the funeral. They returned to the United States, but knowing that their work visas would expire soon and not wanting to remain in the United States illegally, the family registered at Vive la Casa, an organization that helped people in search of protection. The family entered Canada on October 27, 2004.
[8] Mr. Torres claimed that it is impossible for him to return to Colombia as the FARC would find him. After a long stay abroad, the family would be tempting targets for abduction and extortion by the FARC. As a "military objective", it is unlikely that the FARC would forget about him and it would take the first opportunity to harm him and his family if their return were discovered.
[9] The RPD rejected the claim. It cited a number of credibility concerns with the evidence and determined that the applicants did not have a subjective fear of persecution.
[10] Mr. Torres alleges that the board erred in its credibility determinations. Despite the articulate submissions of counsel, I have not been persuaded that the credibility findings of the board were patently unreasonable.
[11] I do not agree that the board erred in concluding that Mr. Torres failed to cite the altercation with his father as the first experience that he had with the FARC. It is true that the board asked a direct question in this respect, but it is also true that Mr. Torres' personal information form (PIF) clearly states that both men were approached by the FARC on this occasion and that Mr. Torres was "very frightened".
[12] Nor do I believe that it was patently unreasonable for the RPD to consider the fact that Mr. Torres' father continued to live in apparent peace in Colombia. It is correct that there was evidence that his father moved, but the move, according to the evidence, occurred in 1998 and his father has apparently not been contacted since then.
[13] Similarly, it was open to the board to assign little probative weight to the letter from the FARC on the basis that it could not be authenticated. The board did not determine the document to be fraudulent. The letter was not determinative of the claim. The problem for Mr. Torres is that the board, on the totality of the evidence, did not believe his story.
[14] The letter from the Liberal Party of Colombia stated, in extremely general terms, that Mr. Torres was a member of the Party who had to move out of the country to avoid threats against his integrity and life. There was no mention of the FARC or a military objective. Mr. Torres, in his evidence, testified that he had discussed the question of the FARC with one of the directors of the Liberal Youth Group (tribunal record, p.386). Moreover, the correspondence contains an express disclaimer that it is not a representation of the Party.
[15] The RPD was sympathetic to Mr. Torres' need to visit his mother before her death. It had difficulty with the entire family travelling to Colombia to attend the funeral and staying for one week particularly when the documentary evidence indicated that "the FARC are extremely well-organized to the point where some commentators have said that they possess better information technology than the Colombian Government". Indeed, Mr. Torres testified that once a verdict had been issued naming him a "military objective" the FARC would likely take the first opportunity to harm him or his family. The board did not err in concluding that it was unreasonable that Mr. Torres would risk all to attend the funeral when he had spent one month at his mother's bedside only three days earlier.
[16] This particular decision has to be viewed in its totality. Having carefully reviewed the records and the transcript, it is readily apparent that the RPD simply did not believe Mr. Torres. On the basis of the evidence, that conclusion was certainly open to the board and it is not for the court to intervene.
[17] Counsel did not suggest a question for certification and none arises.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the application is dismissed.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
Email this Content