Date: 20040521
Docket: IMM-6090-03
Citation: 2004 FC 722
Ottawa, Ontario, May 21, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
SHUREMA VALENSIA (VALENSI) JAFFIER
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Ms. Shurema Valensia Jaffier (Applicant) seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board), reasons dated July 10, 2003. In that decision, the Board found the Applicant not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
ISSUES
[2] Though this case raises credibility issues, it can be decided based on whether the Board erred in concluding that state protection was available to the Applicant.
[3] For the reasons below, I answer in the negative and will therefore dismiss the application.
FACTS
[4] The Applicant alleges a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of her membership in a particular social group, namely women in abusive relationships in Grenada. The facts are taken from the Applicant's Personal Information Form (PIF). In July 1998, the Applicant met a man called Jude Charles and started having a relationship with him. The man used illegal drugs and drank excessively. Approximately one year after their first encounter, Mr. Charles came to the Applicant's home intoxicated and smelling marijuana. He saw the Applicant talking to a male friend and started kicking and punching her. As a result of the beating, the Applicant had a busted lip and cuts on her back and forehead. She still has the scars. The Applicant's sister called the police who arrived ten minutes later. When the police saw the Applicant's condition and heard what had happened, Mr. Charles was arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced to time in jail. When Mr. Charles was released from prison, he came to the Applicant's home. Drunk and drugged, Mr. Charles had a confrontation with the Applicant and cut her on her left hand. She still bears the scar. After this last incident, Mr. Charles continually threatened to do bodily harm to the Applicant. The Applicant explains that she tried to protect herself in Grenada. She went to the police and had Mr. Charles put in jail but he stills wants to hurt her. With the help of her family in Grenada and a friend in Canada, the Applicant purchased a plane ticket and arrived in Canada in February 2001. She made her refugee claim on December 29, 2001.
CONTESTED DECISION
[5] The Board found that the Applicant was not credible, ultimately concluding that it did "not believe that the claimant was involved in a relationship that resulted in a criminal trial involving her ex-boyfriend" and that the letter from the police she submitted was a fabrication. The Applicant's lack of credibility was added to by her 11-month delay in claiming protection. The Board concluded that even if it had believed the Applicant, which it did not, the Applicant's claim would still have failed on the basis that there is adequate state protection available to her.
ANALYSIS
[6] This application deals with credibility and state protection issues, which are questions of fact. Therefore, the Board's decision should only be interfered with if it was patently unreasonable.
[7] Having read the Board's decision with great attention, I come to the conclusion that it rightly concluded the Applicant's credibility was undermined by what was obviously a fabricated police letter and an 11-month delay in claiming refugee status. Having concluded the Applicant was not credible, the Board had the discretion to give little weight to the psychological report and the medical note as they merely reflected the Applicant's present psychological and physical condition and could not inherently prove facts alleged by the Applicant. I will not go into a more detailed analysis of credibility as my conclusion on the state protection issue is, in itself, enough to dismiss this application.
[8] Absent a situation of complete breakdown of state apparatus, it is generally presumed that a state is able to protect its citizens. The onus is on the Applicant to prove that that presumption does not apply (Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689). In this case, both the documentary evidence and the Applicant's personal experience tend to show that the government of Grenada is taking domestic violence seriously and that the Applicant would have legal recourse upon her return if need be. As noted by the Board, the documentary evidence indicates that Grenada is a parliamentary democracy with an independent judiciary. A Domestic Violence Bill was passed in May 2001 and came into effect in June of the same year (the Board mistakenly wrote May 2000, but this error is not fatal as it has still been more than two years since the enactment and the legislation is one of several factors adding to the argument). Also, the Legal Aid and Counselling Clinic and the Caribbean Association for Feminist Research and Action provided training for police officers and social workers in October 2001, dealing with domestic violence.
[9] More importantly, it is the Applicant's own evidence that she received protection from the police in 1999. She stated that after she complained of having been beaten by her ex-boyfriend, he was charged, convicted and served a jail term. The Board found that should the Applicant return to Grenada, she would be able to seek protection again. I am satisfied that the Applicant did not provide a basis to challenge this finding.
[10] It was reasonable for the Board to conclude that state protection is available to the Applicant, which means her claim must fail. The application is dismissed.
[11] No question for certification were raised even though counsel had the opportunity to do so. Therefore, no question of general importance will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance is certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6090-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHUREMA VALENSIA (VALENSI) JAFFIER v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 27, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
DATED: May 21, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Daniel M. Fine FOR THE APPLICANT
Ladan Shahrooz FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Daniel M. Fine
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris A. Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content