Docket: IMM-1406-13
Citation:
2014 FC 613
Ottawa, Ontario, June 25, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
OLGA ANANYEVA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Proceeding
[1]
Olga Ananyeva [the Applicant] has brought an
application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [the Board], dated
February 1, 2013 denying her claim for refugee protection on the basis
that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This
application is made pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act].
II.
Background
[2]
The Applicant’s husband [the Husband] graduated
with a gold medal from Military Aviation School. Thereafter, he and his family experienced
many years of persecution (1992-2011) at the hands of the Federal Security
Services [the FSS] because he refused to become an FSS member. His military
career was blocked and death threats against him and their son were made by
phone. A bullet was fired through their apartment door. When her Husband tried
to set up his own company, his loan was blocked by the FSS. Further, the Husband
was wrongly convicted of murder and jailed for several years based on the fabricated
testimony of an FSS agent.
[3]
The Applicant and her Husband applied for relief
to the European Court of Human Rights. This angered the FSS. It threatened both
the Applicant and her Husband with death unless the litigation was withdrawn.
[4]
During this period, the Applicant travelled in
and out of Russia several times. She explained that, in spite of the threats to
herself and her Husband and child, she returned to Russia because she felt
responsible for their care and for her parents care, since she is their only
child [the Explanation].
[5]
In 2011, the Applicant and her Husband decided
to send their son to school in Canada and the Applicant planned to accompany
him for two weeks to see him settled. Then she planned to return to Russia. However, the incident described below changed this plan and caused her to claim
refugee status.
[6]
The incident [the Incident] began on
October 24, 2011 the day before the Applicant left for Canada. Her personal cell phone rang and her Husband answered. The police asked for her and
her Husband said she was out. On October 26, 2011, the day after her
departure, the police called again and asked where she was and said they wanted
to meet with her. This was the first time the police had shown a direct interest
in her. For this reason, her Husband advised her to seek refugee protection in Canada.
III.
The Decision
[7]
The Decision is only eight paragraphs in length.
It purports to set out the facts but makes no mention of the threats to the Husband,
the Applicant and their son. The Board accepted that the alleged events and
threats occurred.
[8]
The Board concluded:
•
That the Applicant’s re-availments to Russia indicate a lack of subjective fear. The Explanation was not discussed.
•
That the Husband was the sole victim of
persecutory conduct. The death threats which included the Applicant and the
threats against the son were ignored.
•
That the Applicant is not a person of interest
to the FSS even though the Incident involves the use of her cell phone and a
police request to meet with her.
•
That the Applicant is not at risk under section
97 of the Act. No reasons were given.
IV.
The Issue and Discussion
[9]
The Applicant raised several issues but, in my
view, the failure to conduct a analysis of risk under section 97 of the Act is
determinative.
[10]
The Respondent suggested that the Federal Court
of Appeal’s decision in Sellan v Canada (MCI), 2008 FCA381 applies and
that a section 97 analysis was not required. However, in my view, Sellan
turned on the fact that there was a general finding that the claimant lacked
credibility. Since there was no such finding in the present case, it is my
conclusion that Sellan does not apply and that the Board was obliged to
set out the threats which involved the Applicant and her family members and
consider the risk in that context.
V.
Certification
[11]
No question was posed for certification.
VI.
Addendum
[12]
Paragraph 6 of the Decision includes passages
that are presented as evidence from the transcript. However, they are not
quotations. The Board appears to have paraphrased and condensed evidence taken
from pages 265 to 275 of the transcript. In my view, this is not a good
practice.
Email this Content