Date: 20080612
Docket: IMM-4118-06
Citation: 2008 FC 714
Ottawa, Ontario, June 12, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mandamin
BETWEEN:
SEREF SINAN
SENNUR SINAN
FURKAN SINAN
GOKHAN SINAN
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application pursuant to section 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “IRPA”) for judicial review of a
decision made by a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer (the “Officer”) dated
June 21, 2006. The Officer determined that Seref Sinan, the Principal
Applicant, and his family, consisting of his wife and two minor children, were
not in danger of torture or risk of persecution nor facing risk to life or a
risk of cruel and unusual punishment should they be returned to Turkey, their
country of citizenship.
[2]
The
Applicants made a claim upon arrival in Canada in May 2002
based on their religious beliefs as Alevi Turks. They said they fled Turkey because of a
fear of persecution at the hands of Turkish security forces and the police
based on the Principal Applicant’s religious beliefs as an Alevi and his leftist
political affiliations. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Board (the “Board”) found that the Applicants were not Convention
refugees or persons in need of protection.
[3]
The
Applicants made a request for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) in April
2006. They submitted a letter from the Principal Applicant’s mother, letters
from friends, and a summons from a District Alderman in Turkey. The letter
from the Principal Applicant’s mother informs her son that he is still being
sought after. The summons from the District Alderman states that the Principal
Applicant is required to attend the local police station. The Officer also accepted
various reports on country conditions and an undated report from the website
Alevism.net entitled “Minority Group”.
[4]
The
Officer summarized the Board’s reasons for denying refugee protection for the
Applicants. The Board had held that the determinative issues were credibility
and well-founded fear of persecution. The Principal Applicant had not been
found credible by the Board. Further, the Board found the Principal Applicant’s
political profile to be of no interest to Turkish authorities. The Board found
no bona fide identification or corroborative proof that the Principal Applicant
and his family were Alevi. The Board decided the Applicants failed to
demonstrate the well-foundedness of their claim of persecution on a Convention
ground or that they were in need of protection.
[5]
The
Officer noted the Applicants’ PRRA submissions contained the same risks as
heard and analyzed by the Board. He noted the Principal Applicant was restating
his case without addressing the credibility findings by the Board.
[6]
The
Officer specifically referred to a number of government and NGO documentary
sources. Significantly, the Officer also referred to Wikipedia for information
on Turkey’s treatment
of religious minorities and the Alevi religion.
[7]
The
Officer found the letters submitted by the Principal Applicant to be
self-serving in nature. They related to his character rather than the risk he
would be subject to. The Officer also found the summons from the District
Alderman was vague and provided insufficient information to substantiate the
risk cited by the Principal Applicant.
[8]
Finally,
the Officer found the documentary evidence provided by the Applicants,
considered in conjunction with other country documentation, did not reflect the
risks identified by the Applicants. The Officer found that the Principal
Applicant and his family would not be at risk because of his Alevi faith or his
political opinions.
ISSUES
1. Was
the Officer’s use of information from Wikipedia in error?
2. Did
the Officer fail to consider the corroborative documentary evidence
specifically the summons from the District Alderman and the letter from the
Principal Applicant’s mother?
3. Did
the Officer err in law with respect to finding that state protection was
available?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[9]
In
Fi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC
1125 at para. 9, Justice Luc Martineau described the use of Wikipedia by a PRRA
officer as highly questionable as the reliability of the information contained
within the site has not been demonstrated to the Court. This becomes an issue
of procedural fairness and as such no deference is owed to the decision-maker.
[10]
This
application was heard but not decided before the Supreme Court of Canada’s
decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9. As a
result of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, there are now only two
standards of review: correctness and reasonableness (Dunsmuir at para.
34).
[11]
Whether
the Officer arrived at his decision after considering all of the evidence
submitted is a question of fact. Dunsmuir, above, at para. 51, informs
that this is to be reviewed on the reasonableness standard. An unreasonable
decision is one that is made without regard to the evidence submitted (Katawaru v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2007 FC 612 at para. 15).
[12]
State
protection is a question of mixed fact and law. As instructed by Dunsmuir,
above, at para. 51, questions of mixed fact and law are to be reviewed on the
reasonableness standard. This standard has been applied post-Dunsmuir with
respect to the issue of state protection (Zepeda v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 491 at para. 10).
ANALYSIS
[13]
The
Officer erred in referring to information obtained from Wikipedia about Turkey and the
Alevi religion. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopaedia which anyone with
internet access can edit. The information contained in Wikipedia does not have
the reliability of country condition documents provided by various government
and established non-governmental organizations.
[14]
In
this case, however, the error committed by the Officer is not prejudicial to
the Applicants as the information he relied upon in making his decision is
contained in other accepted country information sources. In assessing the
treatment of Alevis in Turkey, the Officer specifically referred to the US
Library of Congress Country Profile for Turkey (2005), the Political Handbook
of the World 2005-2006, the US DOS 2005 Country Report on Human Rights
Practices, Response to Information Request published in April 2005 by the
Immigration and Refugee Board, and the Human Rights Watch World Report (2006).
These reports provided adequate evidentiary grounding to support the Officer’s
conclusion that the Applicants do not face risk because of their religious
beliefs. As such the Officer’s erroneous reference to Wikepedia is not fatal
to the decision. Given a different set of facts, it would be open for a
reviewing Court to arrive at a different conclusion.
[15]
The
Officer specifically considered the summons from the District Alderman
requiring the Principal Applicant to report to the police station. The
Officer found the summons was vague and provided insufficient information to
establish risks faced by the Principal Applicant. The Officer gave the summons
little weight. I would add that the summons was prepared some five and a half
years after the Principal Applicant left Turkey. I do not find
the Officer to have failed to consider this corroborative documentary evidence
and assign it appropriate weight. The Office also considered the letter from
the Principal Applicant’s mother noting that it closes with a request that the
letter be forwarded to tell the authorities that the Applicant would be at risk
if returned. The Officer concludes the letter was solicited for the purposes
of the PRRA application and is self serving. I find the Officer’s assessment
to be reasonable.
[16]
In
respect of the issue of state protection, there is no indication that the
Officer has not considered the evidence before him. The country condition
documentation submitted by the Applicants were admitted and assessed by the
Officer. He found that objective documentary evidence indicates that Turkey is a
functioning democracy which promotes and protects religious tolerance. He
found that while Alevis have faced discrimination, it does that did not amount
to persecution and the treatment of Alveis has improved over the years.
[17]
The
Officer accepted that the Applicants are Alevi. The Officer acknowledged human
rights mistreatment did occur in Turkey. Persons who were
identified as involved in leading or in significant roles with Kurdish, left
wing or Islamic terrorist groups or political parties were likely to face
prosecution and may experience persecution by security forces. He concluded
that the Principal Applicant was not as risk as he was not a member of a
targeted group. He added that should the authorities act contrary to their
proper mandate, state protection was available to the Applicants.
[18]
On
review of the totality of the accepted country condition documentation, I do
not find the Officer erred in concluding that the Applicants would not be at
risk because of their Alevi faith or the Principal Applicant’s leftist political
opinions. Nor did the Officer err in finding that state protection was
available. The Officer’s findings are reasonable.
CONCLUSION
[19]
The
application for judicial review is dismissed. I find that no question of
general importance arises.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
question of general importance is certified.
“Leonard
S. Mandamin”
Email this Content