Date: 20040825
Docket: IMM-6888-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1173
Toronto, Ontario, August 25th, 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein
BETWEEN:
GALNE HAMORI, BEATA
GAL, DALMA
GAL, CSENGE
GAL, TIBOR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicants are Beata Galne Hamori, a 36 year old citizen of Hungary (the female applicant), her 39 year old separated spouse, Gal Tibor (the male applicant), and their two daughters, aged 12 and 14 (the minor applicants).
[2] While working as a security guard at a gas station and parking lot, the male applicant claims that he apprehended several criminals from a gypsy mafia organisation. After this incident, the applicants claim that they were subject to severe harassment and received death threats. They also claim that a child from a mafia family broke one of the minor applicant's fingers in the school yard. They claim that government officials have been unable or unwilling to offer them protection from this mistreatment.
[3] As a result of the stress caused by these events, the applicants claim that the male applicant left the family and came alone to Canada. Seeking a familial reconciliation, the female applicant came on a visit for several weeks in April 2001. In June 2001, she returned to Canada with the couple's children and the family made refugee claims.
[4] The Claim was denied. In its Reasons, the Panel drew negative credibility inferences from contradictions and omissions in the female applicant's Port of Entry (POE) Notes, her PIF narrative and her oral testimony. It found that:
1. she had failed to provide a sufficient explanation as to why she omitted to mention in her POE interview that she was afraid of persecution from the mafia rather that other criminal organisations and that her husband had been physically assaulted in December 1998;
2. her explanation that she failed to seek refugee protection in April 2001 because she did not understand the Canadian legal system and wanted her children to finish their school year was insufficient;
3. she had provided inconsistent explanations as to why she believed that men who accosted her were of gypsy origin; and
4. she was unable to explain why her family had been persecuted even though the alleged persecutors had suffered no serious repercussions as a result of the male applicant's actions.
The Board also found it not to be credible that the applicants had reported some but not the most serious of the alleged incidents to the police and concluded that adequate state protection would have been provided if requested. As a result, it dismissed the applicants' claims.
[5] The applicants seek judicial review of this decision, alleging that the Board made findings of credibility inconsistent with the record and drew unsubstantiated inferences. Accordingly, it is submitted that its conclusions are perverse and capricious and the decision should be overturned.
[6] The standard of review for the credibility and factual findings challenged by the applicants is patent unreasonableness (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) [1993], 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.); Singh v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1451).
[7] After carefully reviewing the record and the Board's decision, I cannot agree with the applicants. The Board's findings that the applicants were not credible were made in clear and unmistakable terms. Each credibility findings is supported by specific references to evidence.
[8] The Court of Appeal in Miranda v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 437 stated:
For purposes of judicial review, however, it is my view that a Refugee Board decision must be interpreted as a whole. One might approach it with a pathologist's scalpel, subject it to a microscopic examination or perform a kind of semantic autopsy on particular statements found in the decision. But mostly, in my view, the decision must be analysed in the context of the evidence itself. I believe it is an effective way to decide if the conclusions reached were reasonable or patently unreasonable.
....... Although one may isolate one comment from the Board's decision and find some error therein, the error must nevertheless be material to the decision reached.
[9] These observations could have been written with this case in mind.
[10] While one might have come to a different conclusion on each point, none of the findings by the Board are patently unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The weight to be placed on each of these items is for the Board to decide. After all, it has the applicants testifying in front of it and thus is in the best position to assess credibility and assign weight to testimony (Aguebor, supra).
[11] Accordingly, I find that the applicants have not made out a case that the Board's decision should be set aside.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed.
"K. von Finckenstein"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Name of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-6888-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: GALNE HAMORI, BEATA
GAL, DALMA
GAL, CSENGE
GAL, TIBOR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 24, 2004
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: VON FINCKENSTEIN J.
DATED: AUGUST 25, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Ms. Lisa Winter-Card
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. Robert Bafaro
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lisa Winter-Card
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20040825
Docket: IMM-6888-03
BETWEEN:
GALNE HAMORI, BEATA
GAL, DALMA
GAL, CSENGE
GAL, TIBOR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Email this Content