Docket:
IMM-11-13
Citation: 2014 FC 221
Toronto, Ontario, March 6, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
OLGA ROMANUSHKO
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Olga Romanushko (the Applicant) seeks judicial
review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division
of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated November 9, 2012,
refusing the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection on the basis that she is
a victim of extortion and is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need
of protection (the Decision).
Background
[2]
The Applicant is a 47 year-old citizen of the Ukraine. The Applicant’s husband operated a business that transported cars from the port to
car dealerships. The Applicant was not involved in his business and was unaware
of the problems her husband had with police.
[3]
In April 2010, while the Applicant’s husband was
in Belarus, two policemen came to the Applicant’s home and asked for her
husband. She told them he was away. The officers entered and searched the
house. They said that her husband owed them money. They asked how much money
she had on hand. She told them she had $500 and they took it.
[4]
After the police left, the Applicant called her
husband. He said they were corrupt police and that they had been forcing him to
pay bribes for years. He said they recently increased the amounts and he did
not want to pay.
[5]
On April 26, 2010, the Applicant was visited by
the same police officers. They pushed and slapped her and asked when her
husband was coming home. They accused her of hiding information from them and they
threatened her and ransacked her apartment.
[6]
The corrupt police officers visited the
Applicant’s home three more times in late April, in June and in July 2010. They
assaulted her and threatened her. On two occasions the police refused to help
when she complained.
[7]
The Applicant fled to Canada on August 14, 2010
and claimed refugee protection in June of 2011.
[8]
The Board accepted that the Applicant’s evidence
was credible and that she had been threatened and “…targeted as a result of the
heightening of her husband’s problem of being extorted…” by the police. They
also accepted her fear of future persecution by the police on her return to the
Ukraine.
[9]
The Board asked the Applicant whether extortion
was a common problem among business people and she replied that it was very
common. As well, the Board cited the National Documentation Package on the Ukraine that mentioned there was a high level of police criminality in the country.
The Decision
[10]
The negative decision was based on the following
two findings: first, the Applicant’s claim was based on criminality and there
was no nexus to a convention ground and second, the risk she faced was
generalized.
The Issues
[11]
The first issue is the reasonableness of the
Board’s decision that there was no nexus to a Convention ground. The Applicant
submitted that she was a member of a social group (a family comprised of her
husband and herself) and that she was targeted due to her membership in that
group. While this allegation is true, it does not in my view create a nexus
because the underlying targeting was for extortion and not for a convention
reason.
[12]
The second issue is the reasonableness of the
Board’s decision that the Applicant faced a generalized risk. As noted above, the
Applicant testified that extortion of business owners by police is “very
common”. It is my view that the Applicant failed to show that the threats and
violence she faced on her return to the Ukraine were not generally faced by
business people and their families. This is a subgroup that is sufficiently
large that the risk can be said to be generalized.
[13]
Part of the modus operandi of extortionists
is the threatening and abusing of victims and those dear to them. This activity
is undertaken to compel the victims to pay and to deter victims who might
otherwise be uncooperative. In other words, the targeting of the Applicant in
this case, before she left the Ukraine and on her return is part of the
generalized risk faced by victims of extortion.
[14]
The third issue concerns defects in the
Decision. The Applicant criticized the Board for not conducting an analysis of
the social group. However in my view no such analysis was required, it being
obvious that only the Applicant and her husband were involved. The Applicant
also takes issue with the Board’s failure to describe the risks she alleged she
faced on her return to the Ukraine. However because her evidence was accepted
it is obvious that the Board analyzed her situation based on her fear of
ongoing threats and violence from the corrupt police officers.
[15]
No question was posed for certification.
Email this Content