Docket:
IMM-5358-11
Citation:
2012 FC 798
Ottawa, Ontario, June 21, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
ILDIKO JANTYIK
DANIEL BONA
TAMAS RINALDO RACZ
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Ms.
Ildiko Jantyik, along with her two children, Daniel and Tamas, left Hungary in 2009 and claimed refugee protection in Canada. Ms. Jantyik claims that she and her family
were persecuted by skinheads in Hungary on the basis of their Roma ethnicity.
[2]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected Ms. Jantyik’s claim after
finding that state protection is available in Hungary for persons in her
circumstances. Ms. Jantyik argues that Board’s decision was unreasonable
because it failed to take account of the evidence before it that confirmed the
mistreatment of Roma citizens of Hungary and the absence of state protection.
She asks me to quash the Board’s decision and order a new hearing.
[3]
I
can find no basis for overturning the Board’s decision. It analyzed the
evidence in considerable detail and took account of the positive responses to
Ms. Jantyik’s requests for state protection. Therefore, its conclusion was not unreasonable
and I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
[4]
The
sole issue is whether the Board’s analysis of state protection was
unreasonable.
II. The Board’s Decision
[5]
The
Board reviewed the case law relating to state protection, as well as evidence
relating to the general civil apparatus in Hungary. Regarding the Roma
population, the Board described the many measures that Hungary has implemented to improve conditions for the Romani ethnic minority. It concluded
from that evidence that, while discrimination continues, there is adequate
state protection in Hungary.
[6]
The
Board then considered the efforts Ms. Jantyik had made to secure state
protection. On one occasion, after skinheads had doused the family dog with an
accelerant and set it on fire, Ms. Jantyik called police. They arrived 30
minutes later after the skinheads had fled. Ms Jantyik could not say what
action the police took to investigate the matter. When she followed up with a
visit to the police station, she was told to speak to the animal control
department. The Board concluded that this was an adequate response in the
circumstances given that the police had no evidence about the identities of the
perpetrators.
[7]
In
a later incident, men yelled threats at Ms. Jantyik and her children when they
were playing in a park. Ms. Jantyik called police and officers arrived 30
minutes later, after the men had left. Police advised her to be careful.
[8]
Ms.
Jantyik maintained that the slow police response was due to the fact that no
one had been injured. However, the Board found there was no evidence to
contradict the officer’s claim of simply being short-staffed. Ms. Jantyik did
not file a complaint with police about their slow response.
[9]
In
2009, Daniel was injured after a confrontation with skinheads in Budapest. Ms. Jantyik could not recall if she reported this assault to the police. She
stated that the police do not help Romani people. The Board found that there
was no evidence to support Ms. Jantyik’s perception.
[10]
In
2008, Ms. Jantyik and her children were confronted by men at a restaurant. All
of them suffered injuries and were taken to hospital. Police asked her for a
description of the men and posted flyers. A month later, they followed up with
more questions and told her they were trying to identify the perpetrators based
on their tattoos.
[11]
In
2009, Ms. Jantyik was a witness to a crime against a Roma person committed by a
member of an extremist group. Daniel was attacked and warned that Ms Jantyik
would be harmed if she testified at the trial. Police advised her to take her
children to the countryside until after the trial, and offered to escort her.
She declined. Police also offered to take her to the airport when she left Hungary. She declined again.
[12]
The
perpetrator of this offence was convicted and sentenced to a prison term.
Still, Ms. Jantyik fears retaliation if she returns to Hungary. The Board found that the prosecution and conviction of this offender showed that Hungarian
authorities respond seriously to crimes against the Roma population.
[13]
The
Board also referred to other incidents where Ms. Jantyik was mistreated.
However, she did not report those events to the police.
[14]
The
Board concluded that Ms Jantyik had not taken all the reasonable steps
available to her to obtain state protection. Further, the evidence showed that,
when she did contact police, action was taken.
[15]
The
Board also considered documentary evidence about crimes against Roma persons in
Hungary. That evidence showed that the crimes had been investigated but the
police response was not effective. However, since 2008, further measures had
been taken to address these kinds of crimes. Suspects have now been arrested.
Other evidence showed that police investigations of some crimes against the
Roma were conducted poorly, but the officers responsible had been disciplined.
Police patrols of Roma neighbourhoods have also increased.
[16]
Looking
at the totality of the evidence, the Board found that Hungary is willing and able to combat crimes against the Romani population. Accordingly,
Ms. Jantyik had been unable to show that her fear of persecution on ethnic
grounds was well-founded.
III. Was the Board’s analysis of state protection unreasonable?
[17]
Ms.
Jantyik argues that the Board committed four errors. First, the Board only
considered “efforts” on Hungary’s part to deal with violence against Roma, not
whether those efforts were adequate. Second, the Board failed to consider that
Ms. Jantyik had been told by police that they could not protect her. Third, the
Board erred by finding that a referral to animal control officers was an
adequate response to Ms. Jantyik’s dog being set on fire. Fourth, the Board
overlooked documentary evidence showing the level of violence against Roma
persons in Hungary and the inadequacy of the state response.
[18]
In
my view, the Board’s decision was not unreasonable given the evidence before
it.
[19]
The
Board did not just consider “efforts” to protect Roma. It considered the actual
results of those efforts in terms of investigations, prosecutions and
convictions. It also expressly considered the actual police response to each
incident Ms. Jantyik brought to their attention.
[20]
In
her written narrative, Ms. Jantyik stated that the police told her there was
nothing they could do after her brother had been assaulted. However, in respect
of the incidents involving Ms. Jantyik and her children, the police responded
when asked to do so. The Board considered all of the evidence surrounding those
events.
[21]
On
its face, the suggestion made by police that Ms. Jantyik should consult animal
control officers about the immolation of her dog seems insensitive, even cruel.
However, Ms. Jantyik had testified that it was animal control officers who had
investigated to begin with. Therefore, being directed later to animal control
may not have been indicative of a lack of concern on the part of the police.
[22]
The
Board carried out a detailed analysis of the evidence. It accepted that there
were serious problems facing the Roma population and that, at times, the state
response to crimes had been less than satisfactory. It did not refer to all of
the evidence. However, looking at its reasons as a whole, I find that the Board
conducted a reasonably thorough and balanced assessment of the evidence.
[23]
The
Board’s ultimate conclusion, that Ms. Jantyik had not provided sufficient
evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection, fell within the range of
defensible outcomes based on the facts and the law. Accordingly, it was not
unreasonable.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[24]
The
Board’s conclusion on the issue of state protection was not unreasonable on the
evidence before it. Therefore, I must dismiss this application for judicial
review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to
certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content