Date:
20140326
Docket:
IMM-1173-13
Citation:
2014 FC 293
Toronto, Ontario,
March 26, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice
Zinn
BETWEEN:
|
|
SURASAK YAFU
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
denied the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection on the basis that he was
not credible, he did not have subjective fear, and that in any event, he had an
internal flight alternative [IFA] in Bangkok, Thailand.
[2]
Mr.
Yafu alleges that his agent of persecution is a loan shark from whom Mr. Yafu’s
father borrowed money.
[3]
At
one point, the loan shark gave Mr. Yafu’s father an ultimatum: sell his land
and home to repay the debt, or send Mr. Yafu overseas to work on a farm and pay
the debt with his wages. Mr. Yafu’s father did not want to sell the farm so he
agreed to send Mr. Yafu to Canada to work. Mr. Yafu arrived in Canada on a work permit on April 3, 2006. Although the work permit expired in 2007, he has
remained in Canada.
[4]
Mr.
Yafu claims that if he were returned to Thailand, the loan shark would find him
and he would be in danger. Mr. Yafu filed an application for humanitarian and
compassionate considerations in March 2010, which is still outstanding. He
later filed for refugee protection in July 2012.
[5]
Mr.
Yafu raises several issues; however, they need not be examined because even if
he were to succeed on them, I am of the view that the Board’s IFA finding was
reasonable and therefore Mr. Yafu cannot be afforded protection under the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.
[6]
In
order to fall within the scope of section 96 or 97 of the Act, there
must be no part of the country to which an applicant could flee in order to
avoid the persecution or risk of torture or risk to life.
[7]
The
Court of Appeal in Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [2001] 2 FC 164 (CA) at para 15, set out the
appropriate test to be applied in considering whether an IFA is viable:
We read the decision of Linden J.A. for this Court
[in Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
[1994] 1 FC 589 (CA)] as setting up a very high threshold for the unreasonableness
test. It requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would
jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily
relocating to a safe area. In addition, it requires actual and concrete
evidence of such conditions. The absence of relatives in a safe place,
whether taken alone or in conjunction with other factors, can only amount to
such condition if it meets that threshold, that is to say if it establishes
that, as a result, a claimant's life or safety would be jeopardized. This is
in sharp contrast with undue hardship resulting from loss of employment, loss
of status, reduction in quality of life, loss of aspirations, loss of beloved
ones and frustration of one's wishes and expectations. (emphasis added)
[8]
Once
an IFA has been identified, the onus is “on the applicant to demonstrate, on a
balance of probabilities, that he was nonetheless at risk of being persecuted
there:” Correa v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012
FC 243 at para 16.
[9]
The RPD asked
Mr. Yafu numerous times at the hearing why Bangkok would not be a viable IFA. His
responses were not compelling. The following are illustrative of his responses:
“I don’t know,” “I don’t know whether I would be safe,” and “I don’t know if I
were to return – I don’t know what would happen to me.” When asked if the
agent of persecution would find him in Bangkok, he responded: “I don’t know but
I think they will know if I return.”
[10]
Mr. Yafu focused
on the difficulty he would face in paying off the debt given that “if I work in
Bangkok so the income would be very small. I would not be able to pay off my
debt” and “I like staying here because everything will be paid in dollar
term.” He also indicated that he would not like to go to Bangkok because he would
want to return home to see his family if he were returned to Thailand because he missed them having been away from them for so long.
[11]
None of these
responses discharge his burden of showing that he would be at risk in Bangkok. Mr. Yafu submits in his written representations that the Board ignored his testimony
that the loan shark would find him. Nowhere in his testimony does he say that
the loan shark would find him if returned to Bangkok. Moreover, there was no
evidence before the Board that the loan shark had influence outside the
community where Mr. Yafu had lived or connections in Bangkok that might result
in Mr. Yafu’s return becoming known.
[12]
Having found
the Board’s finding of an IFA in Bangkok to be reasonable, this application
must be dismissed.
[13]
No
question was proposed for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that
the application is dismissed and no question is certified.
"Russel W.
Zinn"
Email this Content