Date: 20050908
Docket: IMM-6618-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1223
BETWEEN:
GERONIMO JOSE MORA CONTRERAS
NALBY COROMOTO VILORIA MOLINA
ISIS MARIA MORA VILORIA
ELDA MARIA CONTRERAS DE MORA
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SIMPSON J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of a member of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board (the "Board"), dated July 5, 2004 in which the Board determined that the Applicants are not Convention refugees (the "Decision").
BACKGROUND
[2] The principal applicant, age 40 (the "Applicant"), makes this application on behalf of himself, his mother, his wife and his thirteen year old daughter. The family are citizens of Venezuela and last resided in Civdad Ojeda, Zulia.
[3] The Applicant participated as a union member in an 18,000 person oil workers strike that took place in December 2002 (the "Strike"). He fears persecution at the hands of the government and at the hands of the Bolivarian Circles ("BC").
[4] The Applicant was attacked a number of times over a three-day period in the month following the Strike. On January 8, while participating in a demonstration, he was attacked by the National Guard who fired shorts and used gas bombs. The following day, January 9, he was assaulted by BC members and National Guard's men while attending a meeting. Firearms were also used in that attack. On January 10, he was stopped in Tijuana by the National Guard and assaulted.
[5] The Applicant was dismissed from his employment on February 22, 2003.
[6] There were no further incidents for some months. Then, on July 8, 2003, the Applicant witnessed gunfire in an area of the city where oil workers lived. He alleges that the government was behind the activity which was intended to terrorize people so that they would leave their homes.
[7] Later in July 2003, rocks were thrown at the Applicant's car at a location where his neighbour had previously been kidnapped. The Applicant believes that the attackers intended to stop the car and assault him. However, he was able to accelerate and avoid a confrontation.
[8] Shortly thereafter, on July 30, 2003 the applicants fled. They arrived in Buffalo the same day and made their way to Canada one week later. They and made their claim on August 6, 2003.
[9] The Applicant fears the BC and the government. Along with his own experiences, he relates a number of post-Strike violent incidents involving other union members. The Applicant also alleges that, as a result of the Strike, he was illegally fired from his employment and is now unable to secure work after being blacklisted. He was photographed by the government and his name appears as a troublemaker on a web page. Co-workers, who were also fired, were told that they would not be able to find other employment. He could not find work in his profession as an Industrial Engineer. He testified that he sent out twenty resumes and received no responses.
DECISION
[10] The Board found that the Applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. In the alternative, it concluded that a viable Internal Flight Alternative ("IFA") existed outside Zulia.
[11] The salient portions of the Decision read as follows:
The panel notes that the most serious harm suffered by the claimant occurred in the immediate aftermath of the national strike, in January 2003. The panel notes that a series of incidents occurred in January 2003, culminating in three assaults. Following the immediate aftermath of the national strike, the claimant did not face any physical harm, although in July 2003, shortly before his departure, rocks were thrown at his car. The panel finds that although the claimant may have faced harm in the immediate aftermath of the national strike, that this harm virtually ceased in January 2003. The panel finds that as this harm was isolated within a short period of time, and was not persistent and serious, that it does not amount to persecution under the Convention refugee definition.
The panel next considered the claimant's profile in the union. He was not a union leader, but a rank and file member. The panel finds that given that the claimant is not a union leader, that there is no more than a mere possibility that he would face persecution were he now to return to Venezuela for reasons of his past union involvement.
...
The claimant was dismissed on 22 February 2003, and departed Venezuela on 30 July 2003. The claimant alleged that he was unable to secure employment in the five months that he remained in Venezuela. He testified that he sent out about 20 resumes, and that he received no answers to them. Colleagues of the claimant who were fired spoke to employers and were told that they had no possibility of being employed. The claimant testified that he applied for jobs related to his profession. The panel considered the evidence before it in relation to whether the claimant's participation in the national strike would lead to serious restrictions on his right to earn a livelihood. The claimant's testimony was that he only sought employment in jobs related to his profession. The claimant remained in Venezuela for only a short number of months after his dismissal. Apart from sending out resumes, there is no evidence to suggest that the claimant actively sought out alternate employment in the period that he remained in Venezuela. The claimant has sixteen years education, and has experience in administration and contracting. The panel finds that it has not been established that the claimant would not be able to secure employment outside the oil industry. Although the claimant sent out about 20 resumes, and received no responses to them, the panel finds that it has not been established on a balance of probabilities that the claimant would face serious restrictions on the right to earn a livelihood were he now to return to Venezuela.
THE ISSUES
[12] The Applicant alleges that the Board erred in that it:
(a) failed to note that the Applicant had been videotaped
(b) failed to note that the Applicant had experienced gunshots on the street in July 2003 in an oil worker's neighbourhood
(c) failed to mention that the Applicant's name was listed on a website
(d) failed to consider the subsequent murder of two oil workers and a mayor
(e) failed to properly consider the effect of his participation in the strike and the publication of his involvement on his employment prospects
(f) failed to consider that the rock throwing incident was directed at ex-oil workers
(g) failed to consider the effect of the video and website on the existence of a viable IFA
(a) Video Pictures
[13] The video pictures were taken on the golf course of the Tia Juana Country Club field at the time of an assault on January 10, 2003. This incident is mentioned in the amendments to the Applicant's Personal Information Form dated September 2, 2003. In the Decision, the assault is described on page 2 and, on the same page, the Board notes the Applicant's allegation that he was photographed and videotaped by the military and that his name appears on a web page. Accordingly, the Applicant's criticism of the Board in this regard is not well founded.
(b) Street Violence - July 2003
[14] On page two of the Decision, it is made clear that the Board appreciated the Applicant's evidence that on July 8, 2003 there was gunfire in front of a house in an oil-workers' neighbourhood (not his) in an effort to force people from their homes. Accordingly, this criticism of the of the Board's Decision is also without foundation.
(c) The Website
[15] As noted above, the Board was aware that the Applicant's name was on a website. It also noted on page three that his name was published in a newspaper.
(d) Three Murders
[16] The documentary evidence disclosed that Juan Carlos Zambrano was an oil-worker who was tortured and killed in April 2004 and that ex oil-worker, Jose Manuel Vileas was murdered in March of 2004.
[17] The Applicant says that the Board was required to refer to and discuss this evidence since it related to individuals whose situations were similar to that of the Applicant.
[18] I have not been persuaded by this submission. The record shows that 18,000 oil-workers participated in the Strike in December of 2002 and were dismissed shortly thereafter. Approximately one year later, two former oil-workers were killed by the military. There was no evidence before the Board to indicate that their deaths related to the Strike or that they were part of a pattern of reprisals against strikers. In the absence of such evidence, the Board was not, in my view, required to mention these two murders.
[19] The evidence also showed that a mayor was murdered in January 2003. This was a time of serious violence in the immediate aftermath of the Strike. In his oral evidence, the Applicant said that the Mayor had provided logistic and moral support during the Strike. The Board referred to the mayor's death in its recital of the facts but did not return to it in its analysis of the case. Rather, it said that the post-Strike violence ended shortly after the Strike and was not relevant to a forward looking view of the Applicant's risk. I have found no reviewable error in the Board's treatment of this issue.
(e) Employment Prospects
[20] The Board's analysis included reference to the Applicant's submission that he had been "effectively blacklisted" by the publication of his name as a Strike participant. The panel accepted that submission but concluded that, since the Applicant's job search had been confined to the oil industry, the evidence did not show that the Applicant had been precluded from earning a livelihood outside that industry. It also concluded that there were no serious impediments to his employment in other sectors. Accordingly, the Applicant's criticism of the Decision on this issue is not persuasive.
(f) Rock Throwing
[21] The Applicant's submissions on this issue lacked an evidentiary foundation. There was no evidence that the rock throwing incident was connected to the Applicant's identity as an oil worker.
(g) The IFA
[22] The Applicant said that he fears the national government because he is considered to be an enemy of the revolution and says that he will be attacked by members of the BC and the National Guard wherever he locates in Venezuela.
[23] The Board considered and dismissed these submissions on the basis that, according to the documentary evidence, the BC is not nationally organized. It also concluded that the Applicant's profile as a participant in the Strike would not now cause him problems in Venezuela. Board said in this regard:
The panel finds that given the passage of time since the national strike, and the claimant's absence from Venezuela, that the threat of physical harm to the claimant would now be reduced. It finds that given that the claimant has not been involved in union activities, and the rank and file nature of the claimant's former union activities, that there is no more than a mere possibility that the claimant would face persecution were he now to return to Venezuela.
[my emphasis]
[24] This conclusion preceded the section of the Decision which dealt with the IFA. However, the Decision must be read as a whole and it is clear that the Board knew of the widespread publicity the Applicant's participation in the Strike had received and, nevertheless, reached this conclusion.
[25] I am therefore satisfied that the Board did not overlook this significant aspect of the Applicant's refugee claim.
CONCLUSION
[26] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
"Sandra J. Simpson"
Ottawa, Ontario
September 8, 2005
Email this Content