Date: 20021126
Docket: IMM-5626-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1224
OTTAWA, Ontario, November 26, 2002
Before: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
VITALIAN DUMITRASCU
GEORGETA DUMITRASCU
SARAH VIRGINIA DUMITRASCU
DANIEL PARTENIE
Plaintiffs
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] In the case at bar, the Court has before it an application for judicial review challenging a decision by the Refugee Division ("RD") which determined that the plaintiffs were not Convention refugees.
POINT AT ISSUE
[2] Did the RD err in finding that the plaintiffs had not established any connection between what they alleged they suffered and the grounds mentioned in the Convention?
[3] For the reasons that follow, I feel that the RD's decision was correct in fact and law. Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[4] Vitalian Dumitrascu ("the male plaintiff") was born in Romania and holds Romanian and U.S. citizenship. His wife Georgeta Dumitrascu ("the female plaintiff") was born in Romania and is a citizen of Romania and Israel. Sarah Virginia Dumitrascu, the plaintiff's daughter, is also a plaintiff. She is a citizen of Romania, Israel and the U.S., as she was born in the U.S. in 1999. Daniel Partenie was born in Israel in 1990. He is the son of the female plaintiff by her first marriage with her first husband, whom she divorced. The son is a citizen of Romania and Israel.
[5] The four plaintiffs left Romania to come to Canada on October 11, 2000. The male plaintiff settled in the U.S. in 1990, and in due course acquired citizenship there. In his personal information form ("PIF"), he stated that he was arrested and beaten by the police in Romania when he announced his intention to leave Romania to live in the U.S. When he returned to Romania in 1998, he was detained and interrogated at the Bucharest airport and was harassed when he made a stop in Romania with his family in 2000.
[6] The female plaintiff and their children based their own refugee status claims on the male plaintiff's arguments. They indicated this position in their replies to the questions on their own PIFs, in particular question 37.
[7] In the decision of November 13, 2001, the RD noted that the plaintiffs did not mention any ground noted in the Convention or in the protocol in claiming their refugee status. Further, the male plaintiff indicated that he had no fear of returning to live in the U.S. The female plaintiff said the same thing about her return to Israel.
[8] They claimed refugee status in Canada, alleging that their respective countries refused to give their family proper status.
[9] The RD indicated in its decision that the plaintiffs only alleged indirect persecution, which does not amount to persecution within the meaning of the Convention.
PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs
[10] The RD erred as, according to the plaintiffs' claim, the question was one of membership in a particular social group, namely the family. The Supreme Court recognized this application in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689.
[11] In her memorandum, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted the case of Bhatti v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1994), 84 F.T.R. 145 (F.C.T.D.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1346 (T.D.) (QL), in which indirect persecution was recognized.
[12] However, at the hearing counsel for the plaintiffs noted that in Rizkallah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 156 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), [1992] F.C.J. No. 412 (F.C.A.) (QL), MacGuigan J.A. rejected this concept.
Defendant
[13] All that remains is the plaintiffs' claim based on the family unit. Several cases were cited by the latter, in particular the comments by Noël J. (as he then was) in Greim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 870 (T.D.) (QL), IMM-2733-96, June 20, 1997, in which the latter expressed the opinion that the concept of a family unit did not appear in the Convention.
[14] Further, the defendant submitted that the grounds alleged by the male plaintiff, namely membership in a social group [TRANSLATION] "of non-Jews in Israel whose marriage with an Israeli citizen was not recognized" and the claim by the female plaintiff, a [TRANSLATION] "non-Jewish citizen of Israel whose marriage concluded in the U.S. was not recognized and accordingly, denying her husband's right to settle with her in Israel", were not recognized by the Convention.
[15] Ward, supra is of no assistance to the plaintiffs here as the latter stated that they had no ground of persecution if they were returned either to the U.S. or to Israel.
[16] In the case at bar, the RD was well aware of each of the plaintiffs multiple nationalities and properly considered that each of them could return to a country where there was no fear of persecution.
[17] I therefore consider that the following reasons given in the RD's decision on page 2 are reasonable:
[TRANSLATION]
The positions of the principal plaintiff and of his wife, one with respect to the U.S. and the other with respect to Israel, appear to be essentially the same. They are each claiming refugee status alleging that their respective countries refuse to give their family proper status. In fact, neither one gave reasons relating to themselves in support of their claim. The male plaintiff clearly stated that he had no fear of returning to live in the U.S. and the female plaintiff mentioned no particular reason relating to herself why she could not return to live in Israel. [My emphasis.]
[18] There is no reason for this Court to intervene here.
[19] For all these reasons, therefore, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[20] The parties did not propose certification of a question of general importance as contemplated by s. 83 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2. There is accordingly no basis for certifying a serious question of general importance.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that:
1. this application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. no serious question of general importance is certified.
|
|
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
|
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: IMM-5626-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: VITALIAN DUMITRASCU
GEORGETA DUMITRASCU
SARAH VIRGINIA DUMITRASCU
DANIEL PARTENIE
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 9, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: BEAUDRY J.
DATED: November 26, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Michel Pépin FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content