Date:
20130206
Docket:
IMM-3858-12
Citation:
2013 FC 130
Ottawa, Ontario,
February 6, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
|
|
GEZGEZ, GUL
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]
The
Applicant, a 27 year old female citizen of Turkey, based her refugee protection
claim on fear of her ex-boyfriend, fear of Turkish authorities due to her
involvement in women’s rights organizations and receipt of threats from a
Kurdish family.
A member
[Member] of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] denied her claim. This is the
judicial review of that claim.
II. FACTS
[2]
The
Applicant’s fear of her ex-boyfriend stemmed from her breaking off the
relationship. She outlined a number of physical threats and assaults she
suffered at his hands. She also harboured a suspicion that the ex-boyfriend had
friends in the Turkish prosecutor’s office.
[3]
The
Applicant also claimed that she was a member of a women’s rights group. She
said that she and other women were sexually harassed by village guards in a
village the women’s group had visited. She said that officials in the Ministry
of Interior Affairs warned against filing a complaint. She also alleged other
incidents while teaching at school. Most of these incidents were not canvassed
at her RPD hearing.
[4]
Lastly,
the Applicant alleges that she was threatened by the family of a Kurdish woman
who she had helped when the woman ran away from her family.
[5]
The
Applicant made two attempts to postpone the RPD hearing. The first, due to
counsel’s scheduling conflict, was successful. The second, based on the need to
obtain and file documents said to be en route from Turkey, was not successful.
The RPD held that the Applicant had sufficient time to obtain the documents.
[6]
At
the end of the hearing the Member refused to allow the filing of post-hearing
documents, again on the basis that the Applicant had from June 2011 to March
22, 2012 to obtain the documents.
[7]
The
Member determined that the Applicant was not credible with respect to all three
aspects of her claim:
•
the
Member’s finding regarding the ex-boyfriend was based on lack of corroborating
documents, inconsistencies with her PIF and general incredibility of her story;
•
there
was no corroboration of her story regarding the women’s rights organization;
and
•
with
regard to the Kurdish family, there was a general lack of corroboration and
credibility.
[8]
The
Member also considered the issue of state protection. The Member found that the
Applicant has not sufficiently engaged the state for protection – one phone
call was not sufficient.
III. ANALYSIS
[9]
With
respect to credibility findings, the standard of review is reasonableness with
considerable deference owed to the trier of fact (Aguebor v (Canada)
Minister of Employment and Immigration (FCA) (1993), 160 NR 315, 42 ACWS
(3d) 886).
State protection
findings are subject to the reasonableness standard of review (Hinzman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 171, 282 DLR (4th) 413).
The issue of
refusals to grant time are discretionary matters but must be assessed as to
procedural fairness on a correctness standard (Matingou-Testie v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 389, 407 FTR 195).
[10]
I
can find no basis for overturning the RPD’s findings in this area. The Member
considered contradictory evidence, applied a reasonable plausibility analysis
and was in a far better position than this Court to assess general credibility.
[11]
In
my view, the state protection analysis is unassailable and is a complete answer
to the Applicant’s refugee protection claim. A single complaint to police, in
these circumstances, is not a sound basis to find that the Applicant had
overturned the presumption of state protection.
[12]
The
decision not to adjourn (Aguilar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2012 FC 561, 219 ACWS (3d) 921) and not to admit post-hearing
documents is discretionary (Zheng v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2011 FC 1096, 208 ACWS (3d) 167). The Member had a proper
rationale for his decision. The Applicant failed to establish the materiality
of the documents said to be en route.
[13]
At
the hearing before this Court, the Applicant did not seek to supplement the
record by introducing the documents as evidence that there had been a breach of
natural justice by the refusal to admit them at the hearing.
IV. CONCLUSION
[14]
For
these reasons, this judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for
certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is
dismissed.
“Michael L. Phelan”
Email this Content