Date: 20060410
Docket: IMM-353-05
Citation: 2006 FC 407
Ottawa, Ontario, April 10, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
BETWEEN:
GERARDO MARTIN ROSALES RINCON
CATALINA RODRIGUEZ PATINO
ERLIS BEATRIZ DELGADO OCANDO
GERLY JOANNY ROSALES DELGADO
WANDA SOFIA ROSALES DELGADO
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a panel of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board), dated December 27, 2004, wherein the following individuals were found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection:
- Gerardo Martin Rosales Rincon (the male Applicant);
- Catalina del Carmen Rodriguez Patino;
- Erlis Beatriz Delgado Ocando (the principal Applicant);
- Gerly Joanny Rosales Delgado; and
- Wanda Sofia Rosales Delgado.
[2] Excepting Catalina del Carmen Rodriguez Patino, all of the above noted persons have sought judicial review of this decision, and shall be collectively referred to as the Applicants.
Background
[3] The Applicants are Venezuelan citizens. The principal Applicant and Catalina Patino based their refugee claims on a fear of persecution by reason of political opinion. Both female claimants allegedly suffered persecution due to their political resistance to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his political party. The remaining Applicants based their claim on a fear of persecution due to membership in a particular social group: family. The male Applicant is the husband of the principal Applicant, and Gerly and Wanda Delgado are her daughters.
[4] According to her Personal Information Form (PIF), the principal Applicant became an active member of the Union for Progress political party (the UPP) in Zulia State on May 19, 2001 and participated in government opposition events. She also joined the Democratic Coordination Council in Maracaibo. Both of these political groups opposed the government of President Chavez.
[5] As an employee of the National Institute of Educative Co-Operation (INCE), from 1992, the principal Applicant rose to the position of Planning and Budgeting Manager, but began to fear for her safety when members of the Bolivarian Circles became active in the INCE. Beginning in March 2002, she received anonymous, threatening phone calls to her home and, in August 2002, as messages on her parents' home telephone. The Applicant believes that the callers were members of the Bolivarian Circles.
[6] On July 14, 2003, the principal Applicant and Catalina Patino were harassed and threatened with death by self-identified members of the Bolivarian Circles. Because of this and other similar incidents, the principal Applicant resigned on July 18, 2003. On July 22, 2003, the principal Applicant and Catalina Patino were kidnapped by members of the Bolivarian Circles, detained for two hours, and had weapons pointed at them.
[7] According to the principal Applicant's PIF, she approached the police several times. While they promised to look into the threats, nothing resulted from the requests.
[8] The Applicants left Venezuela on September 9, 2003 and landed in Miami, U.S.A. The Applicants came to Canada from Buffalo, U.S.A. on October 10, 2003 and made a refugee claim on that same day.
Board's Decision
[9] The Board found that all the claimants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
[10] The determinative issue in this decision was the existence of an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) within Venezuela, located outside of Zulia State in the cities of Caracas or Barcelona.
[11] According to the Board, there was documentary country evidence that established a "continuing conflict" between pro- and anti-Chavez political groups, including violence and human rights abuses. However, the Board found that the principal Applicant's profile was not similar to those who would be at risk of serious harm from supporters of the Chavez government, if she relocated to Caracas or Barcelona. Although the principal Applicant had been active in both the UPP and the Democratic Coordination Council, she held no office or position in either of those organizations. There was no documentary evidence showing targeting of the UPP by the Chavez government. Given the substantive amount of documentary evidence available, the Board found that it was implausible that the alleged targeting of the UPP would not have been documented. There was also no documentary country evidence to support the claim that supporters of the government, such as the Bolivarian Circles, were harassing or threatening members of the UPP.
[12] Although the principal Applicant had pointed to the fact that she had signed a referendum in opposition to President Chavez, the evidence indicated that approximately three million people had signed the petition.
[13] The Board found it implausible that the Applicant would have been appointed to an important position in the INCE if the government or elements of the Bolivarian Circles within the INCE had been aware of, or concerned with, her political beliefs. The Board found that the principal Applicant's resignation letter, which cited "problems and very personal reasons" for her resignation and was thankful of the organization, was inconsistent with a serious, well-founded fear of persecution. The Board concluded that the principal Applicant's story that she had experienced death threats at the INCE were embellishments for the purpose of her refugee claim.
[14] The Board considered the supporting statements presented into evidence by the Applicants, detailing the problems they had experienced, but found that the principal Applicant had a limited and localized political profile and there was no serious possibility that supports of the Chavez government would pursue and personally target her in Caracas or Venezuela.
[15] The Board found that it would not be unduly harsh to expect the Applicant to relocate to another part of the country. The principal Applicant and her husband were both healthy, of early middle age, and well-educated with considerable employment experience in their respective areas of work. The Board found no serious economic or social barriers to relocation.
Issues
[16] The issues raised by the Applicants are as follows:
- Did the Board deny the Applicants the right to a fair hearing by following the order of questioning set out in Guideline 7: Concerning Preparation and Conduct of a Hearing in the Refugee Protection Division (Guideline 7)?
- Did the Board err in concluding that the Applicants had an IFA within Venezuela?
[17] Guideline 7 was the subject of the decision of this Court in Thamotharem v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 16. Following this decision, this application for judicial review and a number of others were consolidated for purposes of hearing and determining the Guideline 7 issues (Order dated February 20, 2006). That hearing was held before Justice Mosley on March 7 and 8, 2006 (the consolidated hearing). Accordingly, the hearing before me dealt exclusively with the non-Guideline 7 or second issue identified above.
Analysis
[18] The possible existence of an IFA is an inherent part of the definition of a Convention refugee or of a person in need of protection pursuant to s. 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA). To avail oneself of Canada's protection, a claimant must establish that the risk faced exists throughout the country from which the claimant comes and not just from a particular region within that country.
[19] A determination of an IFA is a finding of fact. The assessment of evidence is a matter within the Board's expertise. Hence, this Court should be deferential of the Board's findings (Ndombele v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1211 at para. 10). This Court should intervene only if the Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact, made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the evidence before it (s. 18.1(4)(d), Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. F-7).
[20] When the possibility of an IFA is raised, the onus lies on the claimant to demonstrate that there is a serious possibility of persecution in the designated IFA area(s) (Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.) at para. 9; Ochoa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1957, 2005 FC 1577 at para.12).
[21] An IFA finding requires a two-part test. To find that an IFA exists, the Board must be satisfied that: (i) there is no serious possibility of persecution in the IFA region; and (ii) it would not be unreasonable to expect the claimant to seek refuge in the IFA area (or put another way, it would not be unduly harsh to relocate to the IFA area) (Thirunavukkarasu, above at para. 12).
[22] The Applicants challenge the Board's finding in relation to the first criterion; that is, that there would be no serious possibility of political persecution in Caracas or Barcelona.
[23] In essence, the Applicants argue that political persecution and targeting of opponents of the Chavez government occurs through Venezuela, and that, therefore, there cannot be any available IFA for the Applicants. The Applicants point to documentary evidence indicating that supporters of the Chavez government, and the government itself, have persecuted political opponents throughout the country.
[24] I am not persuaded that the Board erred in this case. While there is no question that political persecution, in the general sense, occurs throughout Venezuela, the Board based its decision on the particular circumstances of this case. The Board considered all of the evidence and rendered clearly-written, comprehensive reasons.
[25] It was open to the Board to draw the conclusion that an IFA would be possible in regions outside of Zulia State. As the Respondent points out, the principal Applicant's party, the UPP, was a local party without national representation, and the principal Applicant was not a high ranking member of the party or a person of high political profile. It was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that, if the principal Applicant moved to a large city in another state, her persecutors would not find her or follow her. Moreover, the Board did not accept that the persecution rose to the level claimed by the Applicants; the Board doubted that the principal Applicant had received death threats at work or had been specifically targeted by the government.
[26] Given this background and the high standard of review to be applied to the decision, I cannot find an error in the Board's reasoning that would warrant the intervention of the Court. In the end, the burden remained on the Applicants to establish that their persecutors would pursue them in the proposed IFA areas. The Applicants identify country condition evidence which demonstrates that political persecution can take place anywhere in the country; however, they do not identify any evidence that would suggest that the specific tormentors of the principal Applicant would find her or follow her to a new location.
Conclusion
[27] In conclusion, I am not persuaded that the Board erred in determining that an IFA was available to the Applicants. With respect to this particular issue, neither party proposed a question for certification.
"Judith A. Snider"
__________________________
Judge
Email this Content