Date: 20010619
Docket: IMM-4741-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 673
BETWEEN:
MONIKA LORENZOVA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HANSEN J.
[1] The applicant claims Convention refugee status as a victim of domestic violence in the Czech Republic. The violence and harassment complained of arose after the applicant ended a romantic relationship with a man for whom she worked, providing child care. It is the applicant's evidence that this man is a police officer. Following their breakup, this man raped the applicant, later made verbal threats of physical violence, and made harassing telephone calls to her, her former roommate, and her family.
[2] At the hearing of the judicial review, counsel for the respondent conceded that the panel's findings with respect to the applicant's subjective fear and the objective basis for the fear do not withstand scrutiny. Accordingly, the only issue on this application for judicial review concerns the panel's finding with respect to state protection.
[3] The applicant argues the documentary evidence tendered both before and after the hearing directly contradicts the documentary evidence relied on by the panel in reaching its conclusion. Specifically, since it is a police officer she fears should she return to the Czech Republic, the documentary evidence establishes that state protection would not be available under these circumstances.
[4] Based on an analysis of the relevant documentary evidence which included specific references to the documentary evidence relied upon, including material presented by the applicant at the hearing, the panel concluded as follows:
...the Panel concludes that the Claimant has been unable to rebut the presumption of state protection.
More specifically, the documentary evidence does show that, while not perfect, there is state protection available to women in situations such as the Claimant...
[5] Having reviewed the documentary evidence, in my view, it was reasonably open to the panel to conclude that the presumption of state protection had not been rebutted by the applicant. As well, the panel specifically addressed the situation where a complaint is being lodged against a police officer and noted the special complaint procedure where this is the case.
[6] I am unable to conclude the panel's finding regarding state protection was patently unreasonable.
[7] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Dolores M. Hansen"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 19 , 2001
Email this Content