Date: 20051028
Docket: IMM-1892-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1376
Ottawa, Ontario, October 28, 2005
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
and
BEATA BACSA; TAMAS CSEPREGI
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ANDJUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Tamas Csepregi and his common law wife, Ms. Beata Bacsa, claim to have been persecuted in Hungary. They say that their problems are a product of the failed Canadian refugee claims of Mr. Csepregi's sister, brother, and brother-in-law, who had alleged mistreatment in Hungary because of their Roma ethnicity. The respondents submit that these failed claims generated a good deal of media coverage in Hungary. They formed part of a "lead case" that had been presented to the Immigration and Refugee Board by the Minister on behalf of several Roma claimants from Hungary. Mr. Csepregi maintains that he was threatened with harm if he spoke to anyone about the lead case.
[2] Mr. Csepregi and Ms. Bacsa testified before a panel of the Board, which concluded that their refugee claims had been established. The Minister argues that the Board made serious errors in arriving at that conclusion and asks for a new hearing. I can find no grounds for overturning the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
[3] Was the Board's decision supported by the evidence?
II. Analysis
[4] I can overturn the Board's decision only if I find that it did not correspond with the evidence before it.
[5] The Minister argues that the Board's principal findings were made without evidentiary support. I will deal with each of those findings in turn.
(1) Was the lead case well-publicized in Hungary?
[6] The Board found that the issue of publicity was "extremely significant". It noted that "outsiders" (e.g. experts) had been permitted entry into the lead case hearings in 1998. The Board was satisfied that information about the lead case had likely become publicly known in Hungary.
[7] The evidence before the Board on this point came entirely from the respondents. Mr. Csepregi stated in his personal information form that he was subjected to constant harassment and threats, by reporters and others, after the lead case was publicized in Hungary. However, no newspaper articles, media reports or internet postings were put into evidence. Still, the Board found that it was possible that information about the lead case had been leaked by the "outsiders".
[8] Sworn testimony is generally presumed to be truthful: Pedro Enrique Juarez Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (F.C.A.) (QL). A claimant's testimony cannot be discredited simply because it has not been corroborated by documentary evidence: (Ahortor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 705 (T.D.) (QL)). However, the Board may take account of the absence of corroborative evidence in circumstances where one would expect it to exist: Adu v. Canada(Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 114 (C.A.)(QL).
[9] Here, the Board accepted Mr. Csepregi's evidence about the publicity the lead case received even though it was not confirmed by easily obtainable corroborative evidence. However, the Board was entitled to give that testimony whatever weight it felt it deserved. Therefore, I cannot interfere with the Board's finding that the lead case had been publicized in Hungary.
(2) Was there evidence indicating that the applicants were persecuted because they were family members of failed refugee claimants in Canada?
[10] The Board found that the human rights situation in Hungary, both generally and in relation to Roma persons specifically, is poor. Specifically, nationalist skin-head groups in Hungary wished to eliminate "enemies" of the state, including Roma and other minorities. Further, the Board noted that Hungary was attempting to enhance its chances of gaining entry into the European Union. The Board accepted the possibility that state authorities would have seen the claimants as potential threats to its EU prospects because their stories about their relatives' refugee claims in Canada would reflect poorly on Hungary's human rights record.
[11] Mr. Csepregi said he received many threatening phone calls and was also threatened by three persons he believed worked for the government. He based his belief on the fact that they were driving a government-type car and were dressed in suits. He also concluded that the government was "the only organization that didn't want" information about the lead case circulated widely. The three persons who threatened him told him that if he spoke publicly about his relatives' cases, his and his family's safety would be at risk. He decided to leave Hungary.
[12] In my view, the Board's conclusion that the respondents had been threatened, and that the threats were connected to the lead case, was open to it on the evidence.
(3) Was there evidence that Hungary was unable or unwilling to provide state protection?
[13] The Board found that state protection was not available to the respondents because Hungarian police were unwilling or unable to protect members of the Roma community. Further, the public prosecutor's office was ineffective in prosecuting complaints of police misconduct toward the Roma population. Therefore, the claimants' hesitancy to rely on the police for protection was understandable.
[14] The respondents testified that they had approached police after they had been threatened. The police told them they could do nothing about threatening phone calls. The police also said they did not believe three men in suits had threatened Mr. Csepregi. In my view, the Board's conclusion that state protection was unavailable to the respondents was supported by their evidence and, therefore, I have no basis for overturning it.
III. Conclusion
[15] This application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel for the respondents requested an opportunity to make submissions on the issue of costs and a certified question. I will consider any submissions filed by the parties within ten days of this judgment.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. Any submissions on the issue of costs and on certified question shall be made within ten (10) days of this judgment.
"James W. O'Reilly"
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL ANDSOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1892-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MCI v. BEATA BACSA, TAMAS CSEPREGI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 13, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: O'Reilly J.
DATED: October 28, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Ann-Margaret Oberst FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Rocco Galati FOR THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE APPLICANT Deputy Attorney General of Canada
tOTTT
Galati, Rodrigues & Associates
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Email this Content