Date: 20050211
Docket: IMM-1952-04
Citation: 2005 FC 185
Ottawa, Ontario, this 11th day of February, 2005
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
UGUR TIFTIK
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Ugur Tiftik maintains that he was persecuted in his native Turkey because of his Alevi religion and leftist politics. His refugee claim was dismissed by a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board which found that his evidence lacked credibility.
[2] Mr. Tiftik argues that the Board made two serious errors and asks me to order a new hearing. However, I cannot find a basis for overturning the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
1. Did the Board err by misconstruing Mr. Tiftik's evidence about his detention by the police in 1996?
2. Did the Board err by failing to mention specifically a corroborating letter from Mr. Tiftik's lawyer?
II. Analysis
[3] I can overturn the Board's decision only if I find that it was patently unreasonable, in the sense that it was entirely out of keeping with the evidence before it.
1. Did the Board err by misconstruing Mr. Tiftik's evidence about his detention by the police in 1996?
[4] Mr. Tiftik claimed that he had been detained by police in 1996, 1998 and 2001. In its reasons, the Board did not refer to the 1996 detention. It mentioned that Mr. Tiftik had participated in May Day and Newroz celebrations in Istanbul in 1996 and then said: "One-and-a-half years later, the police came to his home in Tokat and detained and questioned him about the PKK and other leftist organizations. The claimant was unable to explain to my satisfaction why the police waited one-and-a-half years to question him".
[5] The Board gives the impression that it was unaware that Mr. Tiftik was detained after his involvement in the 1996 celebrations since it wondered why police did not respond until 1998. However, looking at the evidence and the Board's reasons as a whole, it is clear that the Board simply did not understand why Mr. Tiftik was detained and questioned in 1998. During the hearing, it asked Mr. Tiftik to explain. Mr. Tiftik said that he was probably arrested because the police were aware of his Alevi and Kurdish connections, his leftist politics and his visits to the office of the ODP (the Freedom and Democracy Party). However, Mr. Tiftik had made no reference in his written narrative to any association with the ODP during the relevant time frame; nor had he described any mistreatment of his political or religious associates. Based on the whole of the evidence, the Board could see no reason why Mr. Tiftik would have been singled out for persecution in 1998. I cannot find a basis for overturning its conclusion.
2. Did the Board err by failing to mention specifically a corroborating letter from Mr. Tiftik's lawyer?
[6] Mr. Tiftik supplied the Board with a letter from his family lawyer stating that he was aware of Mr. Tiftik's various detentions. The Board did not mention the letter in its reasons. Mr. Tiftik argues that the letter was a key piece of corroborating evidence and that the Board had a duty to consider it.
[7] The Board reviewed a good deal of documentary evidence in arriving at its decision, including letters from the ODP and the Haci Bektas Veli Foundation. Those letters simply stated that Mr. Tiftik had participated in the two organizations. They did not corroborate his allegations of detention and mistreatment. The lawyer's letter was only slightly more helpful. The author said that Mr. Tiftik "had been detained by police a few times" for political reasons and, as far as he could remember, the last occasion was in February or March of 2001. The letter gave no details of the reasons for Mr. Tiftik's detention and did not mention any mistreatment while he was in custody. In my view, the letter was not of such central significance that the Board had a duty to mention it specifically in its reasons.
[8] Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1952-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: UGUR TIFTIK v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ON
DATE OF HEARING: January 26, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: February 11, 2005
APPEARANCES BY:
Alex Billingsley FOR THE APPLICANT
Sally Thomas FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ALEX BILLINGSLEY FOR THE APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, ON
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, ON FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content