[1] The male Applicant, Artur Gavoci, his wife Brixhilda Gavoci and their son, Marcel Gavoci are citizens of Albania who arrived in Canada on September 21, 2003. They claim that they will be subjected to serious harm or killed as a result of a blood feud between the Marku family and the Gavoci family. In a decision dated June 16, 2004, a panel of Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Protection Division) ("the Board") rejected the Applicants' claim on the basis that state protection was available to them in Albania. The Applicants seek judicial review of that decision.
ISSUES
[2] The only issue in this application is whether the Board's conclusion that state protection is available to the Applicants was made without regard to the evidence.
ANALYSIS
[3] Whether state protection is available to the Applicants is a decision for the Board to which a standard of patent unreasonableness applies. That is, I may only overturn the decision if it is patently unreasonable in the sense that it is entirely unsupported by the evidence.
[4] The Board appears to have accepted the evidence of the Applicants. That is, the Applicants are Albanian citizens who have been caught up in a blood feud between their family and another Albanian family. The Board also did not discount the testimony that the male Applicant's brother was murdered.
[5] In dealing with the determinative issue of the availability of state protection, the Board acknowledged the existence of blood feuds as a serious problem in Albania. The Board also accepted that "the police and judicial system in Albania is somewhat weak and not as effective as it could be". However, after referring specifically to certain parts of the documentary evidence, the Board concluded, in a series of comments, that:
· . . . police and government authorities in Albania are making serious efforts to eliminate the blood feud phenomenon in Albania and to bring those who perpetrate acts of murder in the name of a blood feud to justice, albeit not always successfully;
· . . . Albania is in effective control of its territory and has military, police and civil authority in place;
· . . . police authorities in Albania are making serious efforts to investigate and bring to justice those persons that become involved in family disputes or blood feuds.
[6] The Applicants submit that the Board erred by failing to refer to certain of the documentary evidence that supports their position and to explain why it preferred the documentary evidence upon which it relied.
[7] Having reviewed the decision as a whole and the documentary evidence referenced by both parties, I am not persuaded that the Board erred. While the decision is disjointed and difficult to follow, looking at the decision as a whole, I cannot conclude that it was patently unreasonable. Although certain specific quotes from the documentary evidence were not explicitly dealt with by the Board in its decision, the Board acknowledged the existence of the evidence setting out a contrary view, with some detail. And the reasons show that the member had an appreciation of that contrary view. In the circumstances, this was adequate. The Board's failure to refer to each and every piece of contrary evidence does not, in this case, warrant the Court's intervention.
[8] The Applicants call the Court's attention to Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425 (F.C.T.D.) at para. 17, where Justice Evans noted that "the more important the evidence that is not mentioned specifically and analyzed in the agency's reasons, the more willing a court may be to infer from the silence that the agency made an erroneous finding of fact 'without regard to the evidence'". The Applicants submit that the overlooked evidence is critical to the possible finding that state protection is not available to the Applicants.
[9] A review of Cepeda-Gutierrez shows that it must be read in context. I note that the reviewable error of the tribunal in Cepeda-Gutierrez was its failure to refer to a personal psychological report filed by the claimant, rather than specific statements out of country condition documents. Indeed, the Court found no error with respect to the tribunal's more general conclusion that the claimant faced no serious possibility of persecution outside Mexico City even though the tribunal apparently did not mention each and every piece of contradicting evidence.
[10] In the case before me, the alleged error relates to omission from the decision of explicit references to certain passages from some of the documentary evidence. Given the circumstances, the Board's assurances that it had considered all of the evidence together with its explicit references to the nature of the contrary evidence was sufficient. The situation falls within the following statement by Justice Evans in Cepeda-Gutierrez, at para. 16:
A statement by the agency in its reasons for decision that, in making its findings, it considered all the evidence before it, will often suffice to assure the parties, and a reviewing court, that the agency directed itself to the totality of the evidence when making its findings of fact.
[11] Accordingly, this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
]12] Neither party proposed a question for certification. None will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is certified. "Judith A. Snider"
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5878-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Artur Gavoci, Bruxhilda Gavoci and
Marcel Gavoci v. The Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: February 8, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER : SNIDER, J.
DATED: February 9, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Jean Munn FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Rick Garvin FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Caron & Partners, LLP
Calgary, Alberta FOR APPLICANT
Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR RESPONDENT
Email this Content