Docket: IMM-1353-13
Citation:
2015 FC 23
Ottawa, Ontario, January 8, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SOKOL KAPLLAJ
|
|
Applicant
|
|
And
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr Sokol Kapllaj claimed refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of persecution arising from a blood feud in Albania. Both his brother and
cousin were granted refugee status in Canada on the same grounds.
[2]
A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board
rejected Mr Kapllaj’s claim, finding his evidence lacking in credibility. The
Board also concluded that Mr Kapllaj had failed to discharge his burden of
showing that state protection is unavailable in Albania.
[3]
Mr Kapllaj contends that the Board’s adverse
credibility findings were unwarranted. Further, he submits that the documentary
evidence shows that state protection is unavailable in Albania for persons in his circumstances. He asks me to find that the Board’s decision was
unreasonable, and to order another panel of the Board to reconsider his claim.
[4]
I agree with Mr Kapllaj that the Board’s
decision was unreasonable. Therefore, I will allow this application for
judicial review.
[5]
The sole issue is whether the Board’s decision
was unreasonable.
II.
The Basis of Mr Kapllaj’s Claim
[6]
The Board summarized the basis for Mr Kapllaj’s
claim. It noted that the origins of the blood feud involved a 2005 decision of
his cousin, Valentin, a Catholic, to date a woman named Lili Cekaj, a Muslim.
The Cekaj family subsequently carried out attacks on Valentin, and Valentin’s
family responded in kind.
[7]
For Mr Kapllaj’s part, he claimed to have been
shot in the leg by a member of the Cekaj family in 2007, causing him to go into
hiding until 2011. He thought it was safe to go out at that point, but he was
shot again in the same leg. He went into hiding again for a while, then left
for Canada. Mr Kapllaj maintained that the Cekaj family is wealthy and
influential, and have ties to the Albanian police. Therefore, state protection
was unavailable to him.
III.
The Board’s Decision
[8]
The Board began by noting that it had serious
credibility concerns relating to the documentary evidence filed by Mr Kapllaj.
It asked for documents to be checked for their authenticity but, because the
Board’s term was coming to an end, it could not wait for an answer.
[9]
The Board questioned the basis for the blood
feud. In 2006, Valentin fled to Montenegro, where he married someone other than
Lili, and he then proceeded to Canada, where he obtained refugee protection. In
the Board’s view, if Valentin had been intent on having a relationship with
Lili, he would not have married someone else; he would have tried to have her
join him in Canada. In fact, he had no contact with her after he left Albania. In the circumstances, the Board concluded that the evidence relating to a blood
feud was not credible or trustworthy.
[10]
The Board reviewed documentary evidence relating
to attempts at reconciliation between the feuding families, but doubted the authenticity
of that evidence given that it nowhere referred to the fact that the basis for
the feud was over, given that Valentin had married someone else.
[11]
The Board also doubted that Mr Kapllaj had been
twice shot in the same area of the same leg. Accordingly, it gave no weight to
medical records of his injuries.
[12]
The Board noted that the police had attended at
the hospital after the second shooting and reviewed a police report of the
event. This evidence, according to the Board, showed that the police were responsive
to Mr Kapllaj’s situation. Further, there was no evidence to support Mr
Kapllaj’s claim that the Cekaj family had any influence over the police.
[13]
On the subject of state protection, the Board
referred to Albanian laws that punish crimes carried out as part of blood
feuds. It also noted that Mr Kapllaj had failed to present clear and convincing
evidence of a lack of state protection.
[14]
In conclusion, the Board found that that Mr
Kapllaj would not face a risk to his life if he returned to Albania.
IV.
Was the Board’s decision unreasonable?
[15]
Mr Kapllaj argues that the Board’s decision was
unreasonable in a number of ways. First, the Board failed to understand that
the blood feud did not cease simply because Valentin stopped pursuing Lili.
Second, the Board failed to give Mr Kapllaj any opportunity to respond to its
credibility concerns. Third, the Board did not provide a valid reason for
refusing to consider Mr Kapllaj’s medical evidence. Fourth, the Board
overlooked evidence showing that the Cekaj family was influential. Fifth, the
Board ignored evidence showing a lack of state protection in Albania.
[16]
I agree with Mr Kapllaj that the Board’s
decision was unreasonable. I will address each of his arguments.
A.
Basis for the blood feud
[17]
The Board correctly identified the origin of the
blood feud. However, it did not consider the fact that the feud escalated thereafter
based on reciprocal attacks by the warring families. From that point on, the
original basis for the feud became largely irrelevant. In any case, Valentin
did not contact Lili because he had given her up; rather, he was unable to make
any contact with her after the feud began. His subsequent marriage and travel
to Canada was not evidence that the feud was over.
B.
Notice of credibility concerns
[18]
Mr Kapllaj was aware that the credibility of his
evidence was in issue. The Board did not have an obligation to give more
specific notice of its concerns before making adverse credibility findings.
C.
Medical evidence
[19]
The Board rejected this evidence based on the
implausibility of Mr Kapllaj’s being shot in the same place on the same leg
twice. However, the medical reports describe the two wounds differently. Before
rejecting their authenticity, the Board should have considered their actual
contents.
D.
Family influence
[20]
There was evidence before the Board that the
Cekaj family was indeed influential. The Board did not cite this evidence when
it concluded that Mr Kapllaj had failed to present any evidence to support this
aspect of his claim.
E.
State protection
[21]
Evidence before the Board showed that police are
unable to protect persons who, like Mr Kapllaj, are targeted as part of a blood
feud. Again, the Board should have considered this evidence before concluding
that Mr Kapllaj had failed to rebut the presumption of state protection.
V.
Conclusion and Disposition
[22]
Looking at the evidence as a whole, I find that
the Board’s conclusion is not defensible based on the facts and the law. It was
unreasonable. I must, therefore, allow this application for judicial review and
order another panel of the Board to reconsider Mr Kapllaj’s claim. Neither
party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is
stated.
Email this Content