Date: 20050812
Docket: IMM-10670-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1088
BETWEEN:
JORGE LUIS MACHADO PRATO,
IRISMAR CHIQUIN DURAN CHACON,
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated December 7, 2004, wherein the Board found the applicants not to be Convention refugees or "persons in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Jorge Luis Machado Prato (the applicant) and Irismar Chiquin Duran Chacon (the applicant's wife) are citizens of Venezuela.
[3] The applicant alleges that the Bolivarian Circles would harm or kill him if he were to return to Venezuela as they see him as being opposed to the Chavez regime. He alleges that he was laid off from his employment on January 31, 2003 and that people who identified themselves as members of the Bolivarian Circles phoned him and threatened to harm or kill him.
[4] The applicant further alleges that on September 8, 2003, armed men abducted him and took him to the mountains where they detained him overnight. These men demanded a monthly payment of US$2,000 from him and told him that he had to cooperate with the Bolivarian Circles or else they would harm or kill him and his wife.
[5] The applicant's wife alleges that the same people who threatened to harm her husband would harm or kill her as well, since she is his wife.
[6] The Board found the applicant not to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection based on the fact that it believed the applicant was the victim of harassment by corrupt officials and not persecution.
[7] The terms persecute and persecution were explained by the Federal Court of Appeal in Rajudeen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1984), 55 N.R. 129, as being:
To harass or afflict with repeated acts of cruelty or annoyance; to afflict persistently, to afflict or punish because of particular opinions or adherence to a particular creed or mode of worship.
[. . .]
A particular course or period of systematic infliction of punishment against those holding a particular (religious belief); persistent injury or annoyance from any source.
[8] This Court has recognized that the dividing line between persecution and harassment is difficult to establish in the context of refugee law and that it remains for the Board to draw the conclusions in this context (see Jonas v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2004 FC 1066 and Sagharichi v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 796 (F.C.A.) (QL)). The intervention of this Court is not warranted unless the conclusion reached appears to be capricious or unreasonable.
[9] In the case at bar, it does not appear that the incidents central to the main applicant's claim were systematic, grave or persistent as defined in Rajudeen, supra. It was unfortunate that the applicant was fired and targeted for his knowledge of special codes, however it was an isolated incident and he was able to find employment with his father. Moreover, the Board's conclusion that the applicant was really a victim of extortion which has no nexus to any of the Convention grounds is supported by the documentary evidence which outlines the prevalence of kidnappings for money in Venezuela. A determination with respect to "nexus" is largely a question of fact and entirely within the tribunal's expertise to make (Orellana v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (September 19, 1995), IMM-3520-94).
[10] I do not consider, therefore, that the Board erred in law or that it based its decision on a erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7).
[11] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 12, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-10670-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: JORGE LUIS MACHADO PRATO, IRISMAR CHIQUIN DURAN CHACON v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 29, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: August 12, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Jeffrey Platt FOR THE APPLICANTS
Ms. Lynne Lazaroff FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jeffrey Platt FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content