Date:
19990901
Docket:
IMM‑6298-98
BETWEEN:
CARMEN
ADRIANA RUIZ ROJAS
Applicant
-
and -
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
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
October 13, 1998, which determined that the applicant is not a Convention
refugee.
FACTS
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Peru,
arrived in Canada and claimed refugee status on May 25, 1998. She has
been a travel journalist since January 1997.
[3] Her mother, who was also a
journalist writing on Peruvian political issues, left Peru on July 22, 1997,
and has been determined to be a refugee. The offices of a magazine she
produced were located in her residence. The applicant also lived there.
[4] Beginning in February 1992, the
applicant’s mother was the object of verbal and telephone threats, attacks and
wiretaps. After her mother left the country in July 1997, the applicant
lived at the same address and continued to work as a journalist without any
difficulties. After publication of her mother’s magazine ceased in December
1997, the telephone threats continued. The applicant continued to live in the
same place and to work as a journalist.
[5] On May 14, 1998, the applicant
expressed a personal opinion about government and police mistreatment of the
media during a televised debate. She mentioned her mother’s experience and the
inability of the state to protect its citizens.
[6] The next day, two police officers
beat the applicant at her home. After the police questioned her boss about her
employment, the latter suggested that she leave the country.
[7] Fearing the authorities in her
country, she left Peru. She had a passport in her possession since the month
of March 1998 and obtained an American visa on May 17, 1998.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
[8] In particular, the applicant argued
that the Refugee Division erred in its assessment of the facts filed in
evidence. The applicant based her claim on the grounds of political opinion
and membership in a particular social group, the family. As the applicant had
expressed the same political opinions as her mother, namely criticism of the
Fujimori dictatorship and media censorship, she suffered persecution because of
family ties with her mother.
[9] The applicant added that the day
after her public statement that her mother had received no government support
after she was threatened, the police attacked the applicant at her home. She
then decided to quickly leave the country and claim refugee status.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
[10] In particular, the respondent claimed
that the applicant’s behaviour in the ten months before she left Peru did not
demonstrate a fear of persecution. Her work as a travel journalist was
completely different from her mother’s work in the political field, and the
numerous telephone threats were related to the magazine her mother published
until December 1997. After publication of the journal ceased, the telephone
line was no longer used and the direct threats stopped.
[11] The applicant reported only one
incident, namely the program broadcast on May 14, 1998, and the Refugee
Division found that the allegations with respect to the events of that date
were implausible.
[12] In short, the respondent submitted
that the panel was not convinced of the subjective fear expressed by the
applicant and that she even admitted during her examination that she was not in
danger and was not afraid.
ANALYSIS
[13] It appears that the applicant did not
directly suffer persecution from the time her mother left the country
in 1997 to May 14, 1998, when the applicant participated in a
broadcast in which she said she sharply criticized the government in power.
[14] The Board’s findings cannot be said
to be unreasonable because the evidence on the record does not indicate that
the persecution of which the applicant complained is related to her family.
[15] It may seem peculiar that only the
applicant’s mother was determined to be a refugee when their claims were heard
at the same time on common evidence and they both practised the same
profession. However, the Board’s inferences with respect to the applicant’s
behaviour are not unreasonable to the point of warranting the intervention of
this Court.
[16] The Board’s findings are supported by
the following considerations: the applicant is a journalist in a different
field and was not bothered in the past when her mother was a target of
persecution because of her professional activity.
[17] The Refugee Division’s findings with
respect to the implausibility of the account of the incidents of May 14,
1998 are not unreasonable to the point of warranting the intervention of this
Court.
[18] For all of these reasons, the
application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[19] As neither
counsel submitted any question, no question will be certified.
Pierre
Blais Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 1, 1999
Certified true translation
M.
Iveson
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL
DIVISION
NAMES OF
COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-6298-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: CARMEN
ADRIANA RUIZ ROJAS
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL,
QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 11,
1999
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF THE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLAIS
DATED SEPTEMBER
1, 1999
APPEARANCES:
ODETTE DESJARDINS FOR
THE APPLICANT
JOCELYNE MURPHY FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ODETTE DESJARDINS FOR
THE APPLICANT
JOCELYNE MURPHY FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content