Date:
20120801
Docket:
IMM-9200-11
Citation:
2012 FC 952
Ottawa, Ontario,
August 1, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
CSABA TOROK
ERZSEBET RUSZO
CSABA TOROK (minor)
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr
Csaba Torok and his wife, Erzsebet Ruszo, along with their son, Csaba Jr,
sought refugee protection in Canada based on their fear of persecution in Hungary as members of the Roma ethnic minority. They claim that they endured
discrimination, violence and verbal abuse in Hungary. They also contend that
school authorities wrongly assessed Csaba Jr as being mentally challenged and
recommended he be placed in a special school.
[2]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed the applicants’ claim
based primarily on the availability of state protection in Hungary for members of the Roma community.
[3]
The
applicants argue that the Board’s decision was unreasonable because it did not
take account of the evidence supporting their claim. In particular, they
maintain that the Board did not adequately consider the evidence showing that
Csaba Jr was denied an education in Hungary. They ask me to quash the Board’s
decision and order another panel of the Board to reconsider their claim.
[4]
I
can find no basis for overturning the Board’s decision. They applicants did not
seek out state protection in Hungary and, therefore, cannot credibly claim that
they were denied protection. Further, the evidence does not show that Csaba Jr
was denied an education in Hungary; school officials evaluated him as being
delayed in certain areas of his studies and recommended that he be evaluated
again at a later date. He was not assigned to a special school. I must,
therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
[5]
The
sole issue is whether the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
II. The Board’s Decision
[6]
The
Board reviewed the foundation for the applicants’ claim:
• Mr
Torok described incidents of discrimination at school, in billiard halls, and
in the workplace;
• Mr
Torok was assaulted with a knife after refusing to give money to an unknown
assailant;
• An
armed group of skinheads approached the building where the applicants lived;
• Csaba
Jr was mistreated at school; his teachers believed he should attend a special
school.
[7]
The
Board seemed to accept most of the applicants’ evidence about these events and
then analyzed the issue of state protection.
[8]
The
Board found that the applicants had failed to show that state protection was
unavailable to them. In fact, they had never complained to authorities in Hungary. Mr Torok testified that he believed the Hungarian police and the medical
profession treat Roma citizens differently from others. Accordingly, he did not
go to the police or to doctors when he was assaulted. The Board concluded that
the applicants subjectively believed that the police would not protect them,
but they did not give the police a chance to do so.
[9]
Regarding
Csaba Jr’s schooling, the Board noted that, on their arrival in Canada, the applicants did not mention their concern about Csaba Jr’s treatment at school.
Further, prior to their hearing, they did not mention a dispute with a teacher
at Csaba Jr’s school, about which they later testified. The Board also noted
that the 2009 report prepared in Hungary stated that Csaba Jr was below normal
mental capacity and proposed further evaluation. A later report, conducted in Canada in 2011, was more favourable. However, the Board pointed that this difference did
not necessarily mean that the earlier report was wrong, or that it was based on
discriminatory reasoning.
[10]
Finally,
the Board noted that the applicants had not been denied any basic human rights,
such as housing, employment, or medical or social services, although they may
have experienced some discrimination in those areas.
[11]
The
Board then went on to describe the overall situation in Hungary with respect to its treatment of the Roma population. It concluded that state protection was
reasonably available to the applicants on their return to Hungary.
III. Was the Board’s
decision unreasonable?
[12]
The
applicants submit that the Board’s state protection finding was unreasonable.
It was based on irrelevant evidence and overlooked contradictory evidence. They
also submit that the Board failed to make a finding about whether there was
adequate state protection for Csaba Jr in relation to the denial of education.
[13]
The
applicants submit that a denial of education is persecution (Hernandez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 179, at para 40). They point
out that school officials believed that Csaba Jr was mentally disabled and
belonged in a special school, and cite documentary evidence about the
disproportionate number of Roma children in these special schools. At the same
time, they argue that the report’s seemingly benign suggestion that Csaba Jr
required further testing reflected the author’s awareness that the family was
seeking refugee protection in Canada; in other words, this part of the report
was not accurate.
[14]
In
my view, the Board’s decision was not unreasonable. The applicants made no
efforts to seek state protection. Although the evidence about the adequacy of
protection for Hungarian Roma is mixed, the applicants relied solely on their
subjective belief that the police would not help them. In fact, the police did
respond when skinheads assaulted Romani tenants of the applicants’ apartment
building.
[15]
Regarding
Csaba Jr’s education, the Hungarian assessment suggested that he needed further
examination in the future. The applicants did not dispute that assessment or
follow up with school officials in any way. The subsequent Canadian assessment in
2011 is generally more positive, but it also notes areas where Csaba Jr
requires further development. It was suggested that he attend summer school in
2011. The Board’s assessment of this evidence was not unreasonable.
[16]
I
cannot conclude, therefore, that the Board’s finding that the applicants had
failed to show that state protection was unavailable to them in Hungary was unreasonable.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[17]
In
my view, the Board reasonably concluded that state protection was available to
the applicants in Hungary. Therefore, I cannot overturn the Board’s decision
and 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