Date: 19990615
Docket: IMM-3751-98
BETWEEN:
PEDRO AUGUSTO VARGAS RUEDA
ANA LUCIA VARGAS AYUDANT
LEONCIO FERNANDO VARGAS AYUDANT
GLORIA MARCELA AYUDANT MUNOZ
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division, dated June 19, 1998, which determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
[2] In order to be granted refugee status, the applicants had to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
[3] The panel found that the applicants did not discharge this burden of proof.
[4] In its decision, the panel indicated that the applicants had failed to persuade the panel that the protection provided by the Peruvian police was inadequate.
[5] As counsel for the applicants properly argued, the state's ability to protect is evaluated according to the guidelines set in Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689.
[6] The evidence established that between March 1997 and October 14, 1997, the date he left Peru, the applicant claimed that he received threats by telephone, his house was vandalized and he was held up on the road, but it was only on October 11, 1997, or three days before he left, that he filed a formal complaint and appears to have described to the police all of the problems he had faced since five people were dismissed from his business in March 1997.
[7] The police reacted immediately and recommended close police surveillance, which all in all seems to be an adequate and effective response to the applicants' fear.
[8] However, the applicants left the country three days later and nothing in the evidence was brought to the panel's attention which suggested that the police did not take action on this recommendation.
[9] Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the panel to find that the claimant did not establish the state's inability to protect him.
[10] On the contrary, as soon as the applicants went to the police, both on September 9, 1997 and October 11, 1997, the police reacted immediately.
[11] Counsel for the applicants skillfully argued that the panel did not have regard to the significant documentary evidence which supported the applicants' position.
[12] I must dismiss this argument as the panel is not required to specifically mention the documentary evidence on which it based its decision, and the presumption that the panel consulted all of the evidence before it has not been overturned because it was not established that the panel issued a decision in which one of the findings runs directly counter to the documentary evidence.
[13] The applicant's oral evidence and certain documents filed by the applicant contradicted the documentary evidence which suggested the protection of the state was available to the applicants. However, the panel could properly determine the probative value to be given to each piece of evidence.
[14] Accordingly, it was not unreasonable for the panel to determine that the claimant was not a Convention refugee.
[15] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no serious question of general importance to be certified.
Pierre Blais Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 15, 1999
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-3751-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: PEDRO AUGUSTO VARGAS RUEDA
ANA LUCIA VARGAS AYUDANT
LEONCIO FERNANDO VARGAS AYUDANT
GLORIA MARCELA AYUDANT MUNOZ
v.
THE MINISTER
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 9, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF BLAIS J.
DATED: JUNE 15, 1999
APPEARANCES:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE APPLICANTS
ODETTE BOUCHARD FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE APPLICANTS
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content