IMM-4406-96
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, the 17th day of October 1997
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
BETWEEN:
DMITRY FURMAN
VITALY FURMAN
SVETLANA FURMAN,
Applicants,
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
O R D E R
The application for judicial review from the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated November 6, 1996 that the applicants are not Convention refugees is dismissed.
Certified true translation
Stephen Balogh
IMM-4406-96
BETWEEN:
DMITRY FURMAN
VITALY FURMAN
SVETLANA FURMAN,
Applicants,
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
This application for judicial review is from a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated November 6, 1996 that the applicants, Dmitry Furman, his wife Svetlana Furman and their son Vitaly Furman, are not Convention refugees. The applicants, nationals of Israel, base their claims on grounds of religion, nationality and membership in a particular social group.
Although stating that it accepted the claimants' testimony as generally credible, the Refugee Division determined that they could not have an objective fear of persecution because they had been victims of only harassment or discrimination, not persecution, while in Israel.
In Sagharichi v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 182 N.R. 398, the Federal Court of Appeal stated the following at page 400:
| . . . it is for the Board to draw the conclusion in a particular factual context by proceeding with a careful analysis of the evidence adduced and a proper balancing of the various elements contained therein, and the intervention of this Court is not warranted unless the conclusion reached appears to be capricious or unreasonable. |
|
In the case at bar, the Refugee Division considered that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Furman, had had no serious problems other than being attacked while participating in a religious demonstration. Even in respect of this last incident, the Refugee Division expressly found that it constituted discrimination and intolerance, [translation] "but not persecution". After reviewing the evidence, the Refugee Division's finding that there is no objective basis for the applicants' fear of persecution is in my view neither unreasonable nor capricious.
In these circumstances, the Refugee Division's comment that the above-mentioned attack during the religious demonstration was [translation] "neither sponsored by the government nor officially encouraged by Israeli authorities" can be of no consequence, since the attack was not found to constitute persecution.
For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 17, 1997
Certified true translation
Stephen Balogh
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-4406-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: DMITRY FURMAN, VITALY FURMAN,
SVETLANA FURMAN v. MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 8, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER BY PINARD J.
DATED: OCTOBER 17, 1997
APPEARANCES:
MICHELLE LANGELIER FOR THE APPLICANT
ÉDITH SAVARD FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHELLE LANGELIER FOR THE APPLICANT
MONTRÉAL
GEORGE THOMSON FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content