Date: 20051102
Docket: IMM-5222-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1487
BETWEEN:
OLMAN (Fransisco) MARIN BLANCO,
LEIDY (Maria) ELIZONDO MONGE
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PHELAN J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the Reasons for dismissing the Applicants' judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board determining that the Applicants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
BACKGROUND
[2] The Applicants claimed that both the husband and wife were persecuted because a member of the Costa Rican police force became obsessed with the wife.
[3] As to particulars, they alleged that two individuals ran the husband off the road. They also claimed that the two individuals attempted to rape the wife but were thwarted by a neighbour's answer to her screams.
[4] With regard to the rape attempt, the Applicants and the neighbour went to the police station to file a report. However, one of the individuals who attempted the rape was released due to lack of evidence.
[5] The Applicants state that 15 days after the police report, the same two individuals returned and beat the husband. They also threatened to kill him and his wife.
ANALYSIS
[6] The determinative issue in this judicial review is whether the Applicants had available to them adequate state protection in Costa Rica.
[7] The Applicants' evidence is that they approached the police on two occasions without success. The police dismissed their complaints because of lack of evidence.
[8] The RPD noted that the wife claimed that her rape complaint was dismissed because of lack of evidence. The RPD found it implausible that the police would dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence where the neighbour, who was a witness, accompanied her to the police station.
[9] The Applicants admit that, although they knew nothing of the Ombudsman's office, they did know that they could complain about the police to the judiciary. They further admitted that they did not do so because they lacked evidence.
[10] The RPD considered the documentary evidence which tended to show adequate state protection existed in Costa Rica. The legal requirement is that state protection be "adequate" not "perfect". The RPD weighed the fact that state protection was not perfect, that sexual violence remains a problem and that the alleged agents of violence were the police or friends of a police officer.
[11] I can find nothing wrong in the law applied or anything patently unreasonable about any factual conclusions. The Applicants, by their own admission, conceded that they did not avail themselves of the organizations that could address their complaint. The underlying theme of the evidence is a failure to take adequate steps to engage state protection and an absence of evidence upon which to base a complaint.
[12] In these circumstances, the decision must be upheld and the judicial review dismissed.
[13] There is no question for certification.
"Michael L. Phelan"
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5222-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: OLMAN (Fransisco) MARIN BLANCO,
LEIDY (Maria) ELIZONDO MONGE
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 25, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
DATED: November 2, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Joel Etienne
FOR APPLICANTS
A. Leena Jaakkimainen
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JOEL ETIENNE
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR APPLICANTS
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR RESPONDENT
Toronto, Ontario
Email this Content