Docket: IMM-9543-12
Citation: 2013 FC 1133
Toronto, Ontario, November
7, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
|
ZDENA DUNKOVA,
KLARA DUNKOVA,
JAROSLAV DUNKA,
NATALIJA DUNKOVA,
DAVID DUNKA,
JAROSLAV DUNKA,
DOMINIK DUNKA
|
Applicants
|
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered orally on November 6, 2013)
[1]
This application for judicial review concerns a
Roma family from the Czech Republic (the Applicants) whose claims for refugee
status and protection were denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board (the
Board) in a decision dated August 20, 2012 (the Decision).
[2]
The Board had credibility concerns and concluded
that the Applicants had not experienced past persecution. However, the Board
acknowledged that Roma individuals have been the victims of persecution and the
Board therefore considered whether the Czech Republic offers adequate state
protection to Roma people at the operational level. The Board denied the
Applicants’ claim because it found that such state protection is available.
[3]
For the reasons to follow this application will
be dismissed.
[4]
The Applicants raises three issues. I will deal
with them in turn.
Issue #1
[5]
Is the Decision unreasonable because the Board
failed to deal fairly with evidence it acknowledged was mixed?
[6]
Counsel for the Applicants provided several
illustrations to support this submission but, in my view, the Board’s
conclusions about the documentary evidence were within the range of permissible
outcomes. Accordingly, I did not call on counsel for the Respondent to address
this issue.
Issue #2
[7]
Is the Decision internally inconsistent
because it concludes that Roma people are currently being persecuted but also
concludes that state protection is adequate?
[8]
In my view, notwithstanding several poorly
written passages, the Decision is reasonable when read as a whole, because it shows
that the Board’s view is that persecution is not a present concern and that
state protection is adequate.
Issue #3
[9]
Did the Board err in failing to consider a
response to information request dated March 10, 2011 which was the most recent
relevant document from the Board’s own research and which described ongoing
persecution of Roma people in the period 2009-2011?
[10]
I have concluded that this issue is resolved by the
presumption that the Board has considered all the evidence.
Certification
[11]
There is no question for certification under
section 79 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (S.C. 2001,
c.27).