Date:
20130607
Docket:
IMM-8752-12
Citation:
2013 FC 617
Ottawa, Ontario,
June 7, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
|
|
MIROSLAV SKORIC,
MARIJANA MEDIC SKORIC and
PETAR SKORIC
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Miroslav
Skoric, his wife Marijana Medic Skoric and their son Petar Skoric are citizens
of Croatia who allege persecution at the hands of ordinary citizens, skinheads,
nationalists and the authorities because of Mr. Skoric’s Roma ethnicity.
[2]
As
will be explained below, I am satisfied that the Board’s finding that Mr.
Skoric failed to establish that he was in fact Roma was reasonable, as was the
Board’s finding that Mr. Skoric’s delay in leaving and his repeated reavailment
in Croatia belied a subjective fear of persecution on his part. As a
consequence, this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Mr.
Skoric’s Identity
[3]
A
refugee claimant’s identity is a question of fact which is “entirely within the
jurisdiction of the Board” and, if reasonable, is determinative of the claim: Balde
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC
438, [2006] F.C.J. No. 550 at para. 26.
[4]
Mr.
Skoric acknowledged to the Board that he did not speak the Roma language, nor
did he dress differently than the majority of Croatians. The Board also
observed that, unlike many Croatian Roma, Mr. Skoric had Croatian citizenship,
that he had been employed, and that he had lived in an area not heavily
populated by Roma. All of these factors reasonably led the Board to question
Mr. Skoric’s identity as a Roma.
[5]
The
Board acknowledged that Mr. Skoric was able to provide a description of two
Roma holidays, but determined that little weight should be given to this
evidence as this information would have been readily available to anyone from
the internet. The fact that the Board asked Mr. Skoric to provide information
in this regard does not make this finding unreasonable.
[6]
While
an inability to provide any information with respect to Roma customs might have
indicated that a claimant was not a Roma, the converse was not necessarily
true. That is, it was reasonably open to the Board to find that
the fact that a claimant could provide some evidence in this regard did not
necessarily establish that he was indeed Roma. It is, moreover,
the responsibility of the Board to decide the weight to be ascribed to the
evidence, and not the role of this Court to reweigh that evidence. Mr. Skoric
has thus not persuaded me that there is a basis for intervening in this regard.
[7]
While
recognizing that identity documents are not available for Roma in Croatia, the Board was also concerned that Mr. Skoric had no documentation of any sort that
would identify him as Roma. In particular, the Board noted that there was no
evidence that Mr. Skoric had ever contacted a Roma support organization, either
in Croatia or in Canada for assistance in establishing his identity as Roma.
[8]
Mr.
Skoric takes issue with the fact that this was not specifically put to him at
his refugee hearing. However, the onus is on an applicant to provide
satisfactory evidence of his identity – an onus that Mr. Skoric failed to
satisfy. Mr. Skoric has, moreover, not identified any explanation that he could
have provided to the Board in this regard that would have been of assistance to
him.
[9]
Mr.
Skoric’s identity as a Roma was central to the family’s refugee claim. Having
failed to satisfy the Board that he was indeed of Roma descent, it was reasonably
open to the Board to reject the claim.
Subjective
Fear
[10]
I
am also satisfied that the Board’s finding on the issue of subjective fear was
reasonable, providing a second, independent ground for rejecting the family’s
refugee claims.
[11]
The
Board noted that Mr. Skoric had traveled to Serbia, Slovenia and Greece between 2005 and 2009, but that he had always returned to Croatia. The Board acknowledged Mr.
Skoric’s explanation that he was unaware that he could seek asylum in those
other countries, as well as his claim that, in any event, the situation for
Roma in those countries was no better than it was in Croatia.
[12]
Nevertheless,
the Board found that had Mr. Skoric’s life really been in danger, and had he
really been unable to get help from the police, he would not have repeatedly
returned to Croatia. The Board was also satisfied that the family’s delay in
leaving Croatia further undermined their claim to a subjective fear of
persecution. This led the Board to conclude that it did not believe the
applicants’ story.
[13]
In
my view, the Board properly considered Mr. Skoric’s explanations for the
family’s delay in leaving Croatia. It is true that the Board did not mention
all of the reasons given by Mr. Skoric for delaying his departure.
Nevertheless, the Board is not required to mention all of the evidence, as long
as a reviewing Court can understand the reasons for the decision: Newfoundland
and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board),
2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708 at para. 14.
[14]
The
Board in this case noted Mr.
Skoric’s claim that he did not know how to leave Croatia, or that he could seek
protection in Serbia, Slovenia or Greece. It also noted his claim that, in any
event, the situation for Roma was the same in those countries. It nevertheless
concluded that if Mr. Skoric had truly experienced the problems alleged, it was
reasonable to expect that a man with his level of education would have taken
concrete steps to leave Croatia prior to 2011.
[15]
The
Board’s reasons enable this Court, sitting in review, to understand the basis
for the decision. In light of the evidence that was before the Board, its
conclusion that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that they had a
subjective fear of persecution is reasonable as it falls within the range of
acceptable outcomes.
Conclusion
[16]
For these
reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. I agree with the
parties that the case does not raise a question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES
that:
1. This application for
judicial review is dismissed.
“Anne L. Mactavish”
Email this Content