Docket: IMM-8320-11
Citation: 2012 FC 775
Toronto, Ontario, June 19, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
|
|
PETR MINO
VERONIKA HAUZROVA
MARIO GABRIEL MINO
DAMIAN MINO
(A.K.A. DAMIAN HAUZR)
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
I am unable to accept the applicants’ submissions that the
decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board dismissing their claim for protection was unreasonable either in its
assessment of the credibility of Petr Mino, or on the availability of state
protection.
Credibility
[2]
The applicants submit that the omission in the
narrative that the principal applicant went to see the Mayor is not a “critical
fact” and should not have been considered fatal to the claim. I do not agree.
[3]
Mr. Mino asserts that he went to see the Mayor
to seek redress for the assaults he and his family had suffered because he was
fed up with the lack of action by the police. This cannot be said to be a
minor matter. Further, he testified that he and his wife reviewed the Personal
Information Form (PIF) several times to ensure its accuracy. This makes the
omission all the more telling. Moreover, it was not the only discrepancy
relied upon by the Board in its credibility determination.
[4]
The difference between the statement made in the
PIF and the oral testimony as to whether Mr. Mino went to see the police with a
Vietnamese co-worker after the workplace attack or whether the police were
called to the hospital on the day of the attack by the hospital staff is also
not a minor variation.
[5]
Similarly, the failure to include in his PIF the
fact that Mr. Mino had authorized the hospital to contact the police regarding
the assault on his wife and the failure of the police to attend is also a
critical event going to state protection. His explanation that he did not know
why he omitted this event was an explanation the Board was entitled to reject.
[6]
The Board was entitled to find that the
applicants’ testimony regarding the various assaults were “compelling, detailed
and graphic” and yet challenge his credibility on other matters. Its
assessment of his credibility was within the bounds of a reasonable decision when
the record is viewed as a whole.
State
Protection
[7]
I am unable to accept the submission that the
Board required persistent efforts when it stated that it expected the principal
applicant to follow-up on his first complaint. Contrary to the situation in the
authority relied upon by the applicants, Codogan v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 739, in
this case there was no reason why he could not reasonably have been expected to
follow up with the authorities. As the Board noted: “In this case, the
claimant did not go back to the police to check on the investigation and so
in these circumstances, the claimant has not demonstrated he took all reasonable
steps to seek state protection [emphasis added].” The Board, as the fact-finder,
decided that a reasonable step would be to follow-up. I agree with the Board
and see no reason why that is unreasonable in the circumstances of this case.
[8]
The applicants’ second argument that the Board
failed to consider the inaction of the police following their three reports is
completely without merit. First, there is nothing that leads me to believe
that the Board did not consider the first report. Second, regarding the other
two alleged reports, the submission fails to consider that the Board did not
believe they were filed. The lack of state protection was due to the
applicants’ failure to seek it and it does not result from an inability or
inadequacy of state protection.
[9]
The final argument of the applicants is that the
Board was selective in its choice of documentary evidence. They submit that the
Board’s decision is not sustainable because of this selective reliance: Manoharan
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] FCJ No 356 at
para 3, Muralidharan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] FCJ No 843 and Balasingham v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [1998] FCJ No 1387.
[10]
I agree with the submission of the respondent
that the Board weighed all the evidence before it; that it acknowledged that
there was mixed evidence in some respects regarding the effective
implementation of state efforts to protect Czech Roma, but found that on the
whole the applicants had not rebutted the presumption. In my view, the submission
of the applicants is fundamentally a request to reweigh the evidence; that is
not the Court’s role.
[11]
For these reasons the application is dismissed.
Neither party proposed a question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed and no question is
certified.
"Russel W. Zinn"
Email this Content