Date: 20050830
Docket: IMM-1353-05
Citation: 2005 FC 1162
Ottawa, Ontario, August 30, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHORE
BETWEEN:
GANKA ATANASOVA VALKOVA
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
[1] Credibility assessments are based on the facts. An analysis of the facts involves a specialized examination. The examination itself involves a synthesis, consisting of a comprehensive study of specific facts, linked to an individual via his or her personal documents, written narrative and oral testimony, all through the filter of a thorough understanding of the conditions in a region of the world and/or a specific country.
Unless it is considered patently unreasonable by this Court, the credibility assessment must stand.
[2] "If any one of the reasons that are sufficient to support the conclusion are tenable in the sense that they can stand up to a somewhat probing examination, then the decision will not be unreasonable and a reviewing court must not interfere (Canada (Director of Investigations and Research, Competition Act) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748, at para. 56). This means that a decision may satisfy the reasonableness standard if it is supported by a tenable explanation, even if this explanation is not one that the reviewing court finds compelling (see Southam, at para. 79)"Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609.
NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
[3] This application for judicial review, brought pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Act), concerns a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) handed down on January 27, 2005. In its decision, the Board found that the claimant did not satisfy the definition of "Convention refugee" in section 96 or that of a "person in need of protection" in subsection 97(1) of the Act.
FACTS
[5] Because they are Roma, none of her family members have escaped persecution in its various forms: imprisonment-her father was imprisoned on this ground; assault-her brother was attacked by racists; sexual abuse-her mother's rape was related to her ethnicity.
[6] In 1994, Ms. Valkova was hired on at a factory. She was humiliated by the sexual harassment practised by her bosses. She continued in the position but refused to work overtime and was threatened with dismissal.
[7] In April 2002, in response to her supervisor's over-familiar, macho and vulgar manner toward her, along with his insults because he knew that she was in trouble with the police, Ms. Valkova lost patience and hit him. She was immediately fired.
[8] Ms. Valkova has been in trouble with police authorities ever since she joined Euroroma, a legal organization that defends the Roma and teaches them about their culture. On two occasions in February 2001 and like her fellow Euroroma members, Ms. Valkova was interrogated and roughed up by the police, who encouraged her to become an informer. That same month, when Ms. Valkova unexpectedly met the principal in a school hallway while waiting for the children to be dismissed in order to take them to a local fair, the principal accused Ms. Valkova of disseminating anti-Bulgarian propaganda.
[9] Because of her work situation and her membership in Euroroma, Ms. Valkova fled her country following an occurrence in late April 2002. She and her mother were raped by persons unknown, in her father's presence, in the family home. Ms. Valkova decided to leave Bulgaria.
[10] Three months later, Ms. Valkova left her country, traveling on a false passport. Following a roundabout route through England, Saint Lucia, and Barbados, she eventually arrived in Toronto.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[11] The Board dismissed Ms. Valkova's application for refugee protection because of her lack of credibility, as demonstrated by several examples referred to in the decision.
ISSUE
[12] Was it patently unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant lacked credibility?
ANALYSIS
[13] It is settled law, on issues of credibility, as in this case, that the Board's error must be patently unreasonable in order for the Court to interfere (Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (F.C.A.), Pissareva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)).
[14] The Board identified a number points that undermined Ms. Valkova credibility. First, her testimony was laboured, hesitant, inconsistent and confused. Second, Ms. Valkova did not indicate in her Personal Information Form (PIF) that she had come to Canada because she could not marry in her own country because she was a lesbian. Third, while Ms. Valkova was allegedly assaulted at the same time as her mother on April 29, 2002, her passport was issued in March 2002. Ms. Valkova could not explain this satisfactorily. She initially testified that all Bulgarians have passports, regardless of whether they intend to travel, but later admitted that no family member except her brother had a passport. The Board also noted the following inconsistencies: No other members of Ms. Valkova's family had tried to leave Bulgaria or their home, despite all the incidents in which they were allegedly victimized. Ms. Valkova indicated in her PIF that she had been assaulted by persons unknown, whom she identified as a [TRANSLATION] "bunch of racists", although she testified that the sexual assault was connected to her former boss. Ms. Valkova still has in her possession the original of a medical certificate confirming the injuries inflicted in the sexual assault, but her father filed a complaint with the police after obtaining the certificate which, logically, should have been handed in to the police. Ms. Valkova's Euroroma card was issued at Rozino but she lived in Karlovo. Only Ms. Valkova left the country, even though, according to her, all Euroroma members are targeted by the police.
[15] Ms. Valkova argues that it is illogical to conclude that a lesbian cannot be sexually assaulted by a man. The Court notes that the Board made no such conclusion; it simply stated that it was unlikely that Ms. Valkova would neglect to indicate her homosexuality in her PIF if she left her country for that reason. As for the medical certificate and Ms. Valkova's possession of the original, which seemed logical to Ms. Valkova, it was open to the Board to consider both the fact that Ms. Valkova had the original in her possession, given that it was intended for the police, and the documentary evidence demonstrating the availability of false documents in Bulgaria and, accordingly, to give no probative value to the medical certificate. Finally, contrary to Ms. Valkova's assertions, the Board was correct in addressing Ms. Valkova's gypsy-like appearance, since she alleged that the police had targeted her because she could be identified as a Roma, and noted the fact that Ms. Valkova attended the hearing wearing jeans and a turtleneck. It is no less reasonable that the Board ascribed no probative value to the only other evidence of Ms. Valkova's ethnic origin: photographs in which she wore western-style clothing.
[16] As for the allegation that the Board's behaviour throughout the hearing was hostile, this allegation is not supported by Ms. Valkova's affidavit and was therefore not introduced in evidence, which disposes of the matter. The Court nevertheless read the entire record of the proceedings in the hearing before the Board and found therein nothing more than the expression of a Board that discharged its duties fairly, asked legitimate questions, requested clarification when necessary and expressed itself with respect and professionalism.
[17] The Court sees no reason to interfere in this case.
CONCLUSION
[18] For these reasons, the Court answers the question at issue in the negative. The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
THE COURT ORDERS that
1. The application for judicial review be dismissed;
2. No question be certified.
"Michel M.J. Shore"
Michael Palles
Email this Content