Docket: IMM-7630-14
Citation:
2015 FC 711
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, June 4, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Annis
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
VASHECA SHAMIR
WILSON
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an application for judicial review
pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] of a decision of the Refugee Protection
Division, dated October 2, 2014, which determined that Vasheca Shamir Wilson [the
applicant] is neither a “Convention refugee” nor a “person in need of
protection” and thus rejected her claim. The applicant is asking this Court to
set aside the decision and return the matter to a differently-constituted panel.
[2]
Having read the parties’ records and having
considered their written and oral submissions, the present application for
judicial review shall be dismissed for the reasons outlined below.
I.
Background
[3]
The applicant is a citizen of St. Vincent and
the Grenadines.
[4]
On April 8, 2010, the applicant was assaulted
and raped by an employee of the family farm who was also her mother’s best
friend and who threatened to kill her if she reported him to the police. She
reported the incident to her mother, who did not believe her. The applicant
subsequently spent about one month in a psychiatric institution for depression
before checking out on September 5, 2010. On October 27, 2010, the applicant
attempted to poison herself and this was the point at which her mother came to
believe that she had in fact been raped by the farm employee. In April 2012, the
applicant left to join her sister in Canada. She arrived on April 17,
2012, and claimed refugee protection shortly thereafter.
[5]
On April 23, 2013, the applicant was admitted to
the Jewish General Hospital in Montréal for psychiatric care and left the
hospital on June 14, 2013. At the time of the hearing before the RPD, the
applicant was receiving psychiatric care on a monthly basis, having been
diagnosed with psychotic schizophrenia.
[6]
On October 2, 2014, the RPD rejected the
applicant’s claim for refugee protection, the determinative issues being the
delay in leaving her country and state protection in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
II.
Issues
[7]
According to the applicant, the RPD member made
the following errors:
1.
The RPD made unreasonable findings with respect
to the ability of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to provide state protection,
given the particular circumstances of this case; and
2.
The RPD made unreasonable findings with respect
to the risk faced by the applicant if she were to return to St. Vincent and the
Grenadines in light of the particular circumstances of this case.
III.
Standard of review
[8]
The applicant’s arguments raise questions of
fact as well as questions of mixed fact and law; thus, they are reviewable on a
standard of reasonableness (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9
(CanLII)).
IV.
Analysis
[9]
The RPD noted that if the applicant still feared
her aggressor, she would have left St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The
applicant stated that she had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay
in leaving by the fact that she was supporting her mother and other members of
her family financially. The RPD should have considered the applicant’s specific
circumstances, i.e. that she had been assaulted and raped, hospitalized in a
psychiatric facility, and was therefore in a fragile state. Moreover, she had
no support from her mother, who did not believe her.
[10]
The applicant points out that her aggressor remains
free and could sexually assault her again. In addition, he had threatened to
kill her if she reported him to the police. If the applicant were to have to
return to St. Vincent and the Grenadines, she would see this individual every
day due to his connection to her mother.
[11]
The applicant submits that she did not seek
state protection because her aggressor had threatened her with death if she did
so. She further submits that the RPD engaged in a quick and selective reading
of the documentary evidence on country conditions. In fact, the documentary
evidence shows that St. Vincent and the Grenadines cannot provide adequate and
effective state protection to women victims of violence.
[12]
I am of the view that in this case it was reasonable
for the RPD to find that the applicant had no real objective fear of persecution
for the various reasons provided in the decision under review. These reasons
are transparent and intelligible. The RPD’s reasoning is rational and founded
in law, and shows that the member carried out the fear analysis prospectively.
[13]
In this case, the finding of a lack of an
objective fear of future violence is not hypothetical and is based on the
evidence in the record. After all, there were no threats or incidents of persecution
for over two years after the 2010 assault. The evidence with regard to state protection
in St. Vincent and the Grenadines shows that there are major shortcomings when
it comes to the protection of women, as the member described, however, the
evidence is of a mixed nature. I do not find any errors that would warrant the
intervention of the Court, which must not reweigh the evidence. Though I have
taken the applicant’s fragile state into account, I am of the view that it was nonetheless
reasonable for the RPD to find that she had not taken adequate efforts to seek the
protection of police authorities. In light of these findings, there is no need
to address the other arguments raised by the parties.
[14]
The application is dismissed. No question is
certified.
Email this Content