Date:
20130613
Docket:
IMM-8764-12
Citation:
2013 FC 631
Ottawa, Ontario,
this 13th day of June 2013
Present: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
BETWEEN:
ZSOLT CSERMAK
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of the decision of Rena Dhir, member of
the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
(the “Board”), pursuant
to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC
2001, c 27 (the “Act”). The Board dismissed the applicant’s claim for
refugee protection, concluding he was not a Convention refugee or a person in
need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Act.
[2]
The
applicant is a 36-year-old citizen of Hungary. His mother was an ethnic Roma
and his father was an ethnic Hungarian. The applicant alleges that he suffered
persecution by reason of his Roma ethnicity.
[3]
The
Board found the applicant to be generally credible in relation to the personal
basis of his claim, but did not find that the applicant had established serious
grounds for a well-founded fear of persecution on the Convention ground of
race.
[4]
The
determinative issue for the Board was that the applicant’s experiences did not
rise to the level of persecution. The Board accepted that the applicant
suffered discrimination and was a victim of random attacks by skinheads, but
found that there was not sufficient evidence that his problems were systemic.
At best, they were random attacks over a few times in his life.
[5]
The
Board also found that the applicant had failed to provide credible evidence
that Hungary, a democratic country, is unable to protect him, that the
applicant had a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] available to him in Debrecen or Miskolc and that it was not objectively unreasonable for the applicant to seek
refuge in those cities.
* * *
* * * * *
[6]
The
fundamental issue raised by the applicant in this application is whether the
Board erred in finding that the applicant did not suffer persecution in
relation to his employment in Hungary.
[7]
The
applicant submits the Board ignored or misconstrued evidence in finding that he
was able to secure three different consecutive jobs in Hungary and that the
applicant’s inability to find employment upon his return to Hungary would not
be based on his race.
[8]
The
applicant further submits that the Board provided inadequate reasons for
finding that there was no credible evidence that the applicant was subjected to
severe discrimination which harmed his ability to obtain education or
employment in Hungary. The applicant did not directly challenge the Board’s
findings on the existence of state protection and an IFA.
[9]
The
Board’s finding that the discrimination faced by the applicant did not amount
to persecution is a question of mixed fact and law reviewable on the standard
of reasonableness (Kaleja v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
2010 FC 252 at para 19; Ferencova v The Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, 2011 FC 443 at para 8).
[10]
When
reviewing a decision on the reasonableness standard, the Court must determine
whether the Board’s findings fall within the “range of possible, acceptable
outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, [2008] 1SCR 190 at para 47). Although there may be more than
one possible outcome, as long as the Board’s decision-making process was
justified, transparent and intelligible, a reviewing court cannot substitute
its own view of a preferable outcome (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v
Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at para 59).
* * *
* * * * *
[11]
Upon
reviewing the evidence in light of the above principles, I find that it was
entirely reasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant had not
suffered persecution in relation to his employment given that he had been
continuously employed from 1996 to 2010 before he came to Canada. Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, I note that the Board specifically
considered the evidence that the applicant had been paid less than ethnic
Hungarians who held the same position. However, I agree with the respondent
that the differential pay did not rise to the level of persecution. In my view,
the applicant has failed to show the existence of an error by the Board which
would warrant the intervention of the Court.
[12]
As
the Board’s finding that the applicant has not suffered persecution in relation
to his employment is determinative of this application for judicial review, it
will not be necessary to deal with the Board’s finding concerning state
protection and an IFA.
[13]
For
the above-mentioned reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[14]
I
agree with counsel for the parties that this is not a matter for certification.
JUDGMENT
The application for
judicial review of the decision of a member of the Refugee Protection Division
of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, pursuant to subsection 72(1) of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, is dismissed.
“Yvon Pinard”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-8764-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: ZSOLT CSERMAK v. MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE
OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE
OF HEARING: May
1, 2013
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
AND
JUDGMENT: Pinard
J.
DATED: June 13, 2013
APPEARANCES:
Me Roger
Bhatti FOR THE APPLICANT
Me François
Paradis FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Roger S.
Bhatti FOR THE APPLICANT
Surrey, British Columbia
William
F. Pentney FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content