Date: 20100910
Docket: IMM-5697-09
Citation: 2010 FC 902
[UNREVISED CERTIFIED
TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, September 10, 2010
PRESENT:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
GEVORG AYRANJYAN
TEREZA
AYRANJYAN
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
application for judicial review involves the legality of a decision by the
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the panel)
dated August 20, 2009, rejecting the refugee claim of the applicants,
father and daughter, both Armenian nationals.
[2]
There
is no reason to intervene since the Court finds the panel’s decision reasonable
in all respects and the applicants’ criticisms unfounded.
[3]
The
panel simply did not believe that the applicant was active in a human rights
group and that he was persecuted in Armenia because of his
political activities. This finding of fact was not seriously challenged today,
and the errors identified by learned counsel for the applicants, if any, do not
affect the panel’s finding that the applicant is not a refugee or a person in
need of protection.
[4]
In
short, the panel’s finding of non‑credibility was an available option in
light of the testimony it heard and the documents in the record. The panel’s
reasoning is well articulated. The rejection of the applicant’s refugee claim is
also based on the evidence and is not unreasonable. The fact that the applicant
provided different names for the so-called human rights group that he said he
had been involved in, coupled with his inability at the hearing to provide
contextual details about the group was determinative. In addition, the
applicant hesitated when testifying and contradicted himself a number of times,
which was confirmed by a review of the transcript.
[5]
Moreover,
the panel invited the applicant to submit after the hearing any material
evidence about his involvement in the Helsinki Citizens Assembly, despite the
fact that he had had at least three years to do so. In its decision, the panel
clearly explained why it rejected the letter (Exhibit S‑1) that the
applicant subsequently provided:
The panel considered Exhibit S‑1,
submitted after the hearing, which is a three-line memorandum stating that
Mr. Ayranjyan
helped distribute the magazine of the Helsinki Citizens group, but the
memorandum does not mention that Mr. Ayranjyan had problems because of the
group or that he was a serious activist for it. Moreover, the photocopy could
have been created on any computer. It is also surprising that
Mr. Ayranjyan did not file that important evidence before the hearing,
since the allegation that he is a member of that group is the key element of
his claim. He states that he had not known how important it was. That explanation
is not credible, especially since he submitted many documents, meaning that he
knew that it was important to corroborate his allegations. The panel therefore
does not give any probative value to that document.
[6]
The
panel’s explanations for not giving any weight to the letter in question are
reasonable. The panel also noted the complete lack of documentary evidence that
the applicant was harassed by the police:
It is also important to note that the
International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights report on file does not
mention anywhere that people are targeted or persecuted by the Armenian state
merely because they are members or activists of that organization. If that were
the case, the panel would have expected the organization to be the first to
expose that situation in its reports. However, there is no mention of it, which
leads the panel to conclude that Mr. Ayranjyan has never had any problems because of
his campaigning for that group.
[7]
This
finding also appears reasonable to me given that the applicant is a former
boxer who is well known to his fellow citizens in Armenia.
[8]
The
panel also assigned little weight to the medical certificates (Exhibit S‑3),
which were also filed after the hearing. In particular, the panel noted that
the applicant’s native language is Armenian and Armenia’s official
language is Armenian, but the applicant’s medical certificates were in Russian,
which made them even more suspect in the circumstances.
[9]
In
his memorandum, the applicant alleges that, by rejecting the medical
certificates, the panel used its specialized knowledge without notifying the
applicant and giving him a chance to make representations (section 18, Refugee
Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-228), an argument that his counsel did
not pursue at the hearing before the Court. In any event, this argument also
appears baseless to me. On the one hand, the panel did not use its particular
specialized knowledge, but knowledge acquired in dealing with claims from
former USSR countries,
which was permitted in the circumstances. On the other hand, the panel’s
decision is based primarily on the applicant’s lack of credibility. Even if the
panel had accepted that the applicant was beaten, as stated in the medical
certificates, it was still necessary to convince the panel that he had been
beaten because of his political involvement, and the panel was not ready to
believe the applicant on this point for the reasons set out above.
[10]
With
respect to the rejection of the daughter’s refugee claim, the panel, in its
decision, described her claim as based on her father’s. The panel’s finding is
reasonable in this case and is also based on the evidence in the record. Both
on her arrival in Canada and in her detailed narrative, the daughter
alleged that she was assaulted and threatened by her ex‑boyfriend, a
bodyguard for an important public official, in retaliation for the applicant’s
involvement in a human rights group. The late argument by her counsel that the
female applicant’s fear was also based on her status as a woman in general
appears to us to be specious in all respects, and the panel could properly
ignore it given the numerous credibility problems already identified in its
decision.
[11]
This
application for judicial review must therefore fail. This case does not raise a
question of general importance.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that
the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
“Luc
Martineau”
Certified
true translation
Mary
Jo Egan, LLB
Email this Content