Date: 20110902
Docket: IMM-5477-10
Citation: 2011 FC 1036
Ottawa, Ontario, September 2, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
KNARIK GHAZARYAN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Defendant
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Ms.
Knarik Ghazaryan left Armenia in 2008 with her
daughter, Luiza. Luiza had been romantically involved with a military police
officer named Karen Garutunyan. The couple separated in 2007 after Karen
assaulted Luiza. Ms. Ghazaryan took her daughter to a friend’s house to hide
from Karen. Karen came looking for Luiza, but Ms. Ghazaryan and her husband
refused to tell him where she was. Karen slapped Ms. Ghazaryan’s husband. Two
similar incidents occurred later that year. In one of them, Karen slapped Ms.
Ghazaryan. The police refused to respond because of Karen’s position in the
military police. The family moved to another village to hide, but learned that
Karen continued to look for them. Ms. Ghazaryan and Luiza decided to leave for Canada. They both
made claims for refugee protection.
[2]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board considered both claims. It found
that Luiza was entitled to refugee protection. However, it also concluded that
Ms. Ghazaryan was not entitled to refugee protection; nor was she at risk of
cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The Board found Ms. Ghazaryan had
not been threatened with serious harm. Further, it concluded that if Karen had continued
to pursue the family, he would have located Ms. Ghazaryan’s husband by now. Ms.
Ghazaryan disputes those findings and argues that the Board’s decision was
unreasonable. She asks me to quash the Board’s decision and order a new
hearing.
[3]
I
can find no grounds for overturning the Board’s decision and must, therefore,
dismiss this application for judicial review. The Board’s decision was not
unreasonable given the evidence before it.
II. The Board’s Decision
[4]
The
Board found that Ms. Ghazaryan had been slapped by Karen, but she had not been
threatened with serious physical harm. Further, it had been more than three
years since Ms. Ghazaryan’s husband had moved and there was no evidence that
Karen had found him. Given Karen’s position, he could likely have located him
if he wanted to.
III. Was the Board’s Decision
Unreasonable?
[5]
Ms.
Ghazaryan argues that the Board failed to consider that Karen had threatened
her, and merely speculated about Karen’s ability to locate her husband.
Further, the Board’s reasons were superficial and inadequate.
[6]
Ms.
Ghazaryan testified that Karen had threatened to get revenge if she did not
reveal Luiza’s whereabouts. However, she did not mention any threat of actual serious
physical harm. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the Board erred when it stated
that Karen had not “threatened her or her husband with serious physical harm.”
[7]
Further,
the Board was entitled to consider the likelihood that Karen was still
interested in locating Ms. Ghazaryan and her husband. While there was evidence
that Karen had hoped to locate Luiza through her parents, he had not found Ms.
Ghazaryan’s husband, despite his military connections.
[8]
Ms.
Ghazaryan also argues that the Board’s reasons were inadequate; in particular,
she submits that the Board failed to deal with the issues of credibility, state
protection and internal flight alternative [IFA]. In fact, the Board did find
Ms. Ghazaryan to be credible. But there was no need to deal with state
protection or IFA in light of the finding that Ms. Ghazaryan was not at risk of
cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. On the whole, while brief, the
Board’s decision included an adequate account of the relevant facts and an
explanation for its conclusion that Ms. Ghazaryan’s claim should be dismissed.
[9]
Therefore,
I can find no basis for overturning the Board’s decision.
IV. Conclusion and Disposition
[10]
The
Board’s conclusion was reasonable based on the facts and the law before it, and
it was adequately explained in its reasons. I must, therefore, 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