Date: 20010604
Docket: IMM-2858-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 585
BETWEEN:
ISTVAN RADO, KRISZTNA TOTH, MONIKA SZABO
and NIKOLETT IVETT TAMOK
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUTFY A.C.J.
[1] Istvan Rado and Krisztina Toth are common law spouses. Mr. Rado and their daughter Monika Szabo are ethnic Romani. Ms. Toth and the couple's second daughter Nikolett Ivett Tamok are ethnic Hungarian. All four applicants are citizens of Hungary and claim refugee status on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of their race and nationality, Hungarian Roma, either directly or as family members.
[2] In this application for judicial review, the applicants do not seriously challenge the Refugee Division's negative findings concerning the parents' testimony about the two assault incidents alleged to have occurred in 1997 and 1998 and the continuing spousal abuse from at least one of Ms. Toth's former husbands.
[3] The applicants' main submission is that the tribunal erred in its characterization of the evidence concerning their education, housing and employment in Hungary as discrimination but not persecution. As a corollary to their principal argument, the applicants submit further that the tribunal neither properly considered nor adequately explained its analysis of the documentary evidence. Finally, the applicants urged that the tribunal erred in concluding that there was no clear and convincing proof that Hungary is unable to afford adequate state protection.
[4] The applicants' evidence concerning their experience in obtaining education, employment and housing was principally set out in their personal information forms and adequately summarized by the tribunal in its decision:
The panel finds that the claimants did experience discrimination in obtaining employment, education and proper housing as set out in the claimant's PIF, adopted by the rest of the family. The claimant said that the children were placed in grades lower than their educational level and segregated from non-Roma children; the claimant's daughter was ignored by her classmates and teachers. One of the children was sent to a school that was much further away from home than schools for non-Roma children. The children had difficulty finding playmates because the non-Roma children would not play with them.
The claimant had to settle for income from odd jobs and unemployment insurance; he could not get financial help to renovate his home. The claimant's common-law spouse was discharged from employment when her employers found out that she lived with a Roma; however, according to question 18 of her PIF, she did have employment sometimes.
[5] The tribunal concluded that this ongoing experience of discrimination did not constitute a well-founded fear of a persecution in these terms:
At worst, in addition to being subject to discrimination in employment, education and housing, the claimant described one incident in the spring of 1997 involving a group of young people armed with chains and metal sticks where there is no indication that serious injury was sustained or medical attention sought. This, in the panel's view does not amount to harm inflicted in a repetitious, persistent or systematic way or harm of a serious enough nature to cross the line from discrimination to persecution. The panel acknowledges that the test is forward-looking; however, one indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. The panel notes that the documentary evidence chronicles widespread discrimination against Roma in Hungary. However, the documentary evidence also describes serious attempts on the part of the Hungarian government to curb the problem of violence and discrimination against minorities and the slowly emerging court enforcement of Roma rights. [Footnotes omitted.]
[6] In her oral representations, counsel for the applicants focussed in particular on discrimination against Roma in Hungary's education system and how this would affect Monika and Nikolett were they required to return to their country of citizenship.
[7] However, the testimony of Mr. Rado and Ms. Toth dealt almost exclusively with his having been attacked twice in 1997 and 1998 and her spousal abuse from her two former husbands, one a Roma and the other an ethnic Hungarian. During the refugee hearing, neither witness added to the limited information they provided in their personal information forms concerning discrimination in schooling, in the workplace and in housing. Ms. Toth reiterated that Monika would be harassed by ethnic Hungarian children and was required to attend school "several kilometres" from their residence. She confirmed that Monika completed the tenth level of schooling in Hungary prior to the family's arrival in Canada.
[8] Similarly, the testimony of Monika Szabo, seventeen years of age, focussed principally on the fear of abuse from her Roma father. In response to the single question asked of her concerning her fear with respect to the education system, she stated: "Because there are many, many people who look down on me, also followed me to the bus stop and they discredit me -- they discredited me." No further questions were put to this student concerning the discrimination she experienced during her primary and secondary education as a Roma in Hungary.
[9] On the record in this proceeding, particularly in view of the negative finding of credibility concerning the physical assaults and the spousal abuse, it was open to the tribunal to conclude that the discrimination brought upon the Romani people in Hungary does not amount to persecution for these applicants. I have already noted the paucity of evidence concerning the education of Monika Szabo who did testify. The evidence of her past experience of discrimination falls far short of meeting the threshold for persecution.
[10] In terms of the forward-looking test, I have reviewed the tribunal's reasons and have taken into account both the country reports and the expert testimony of Jozsef Krasznai specifically relied upon by the applicants in counsel's oral submissions. It is trite that the Refugee Division need not refer to all country condition documents in its reasons. In my view, the tribunal's findings are supported by the evidence referenced in its reasons. The applicants have established no reviewable error in the tribunal's conclusion nor in its reasons on the facts of this case which would warrant the Court's intervention.
[11] Concerning state protection, the tribunal referred to its negative credibility findings to explain why Mr. Rado was not aware of NEKKI, a legal aid defence program for Roma. While acknowledging police discrimination and brutality against Roma people taken into custody, the tribunal preferred to rely on the documentary evidence that Hungarian police forces are being educated in cultural matters and conflict resolution methods and that attempts are being made to hire Roma police officers. On the basis of the findings concerning these applicants and the evidence concerning the efforts now being made in Hungary, I am satisfied that the applicants have not established any reviewable error in the tribunal's conclusion concerning the availability of adequate state protection: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.) and Kadenko v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532 (F.C.A.).
[12] For these reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. In response to her request, any submissions the applicants' counsel may wish to make concerning the certification of a serious question shall be served and filed within seven days of the date of these reasons.
"Allan Lutfy"
A.C.J.
Ottawa, Ontario
June 4, 2001
Email this Content