Date: 20160713
Docket:
IMM-5078-15
Citation:
2016 FC 802
Ottawa, Ontario, July 13, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice McVeigh
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ETLEVA MURRIZI,
PRISILA MURRIZI, TZESIKA MURRIZI, GJOVALIN MURRIZI
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Etleva Murrizi (née Luli), her husband, Gjovalin
Murrizi, and her two daughters, Prisila Murrizi and Tzesika Murrizi
[collectively, the Applicants], have brought an application for judicial
review, challenging an October 22, 2015 decision of the Refugee Protection
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [the RPD].
[2]
In that decision, it was determined that the
Applicants are not Convention refugees under section 96, nor persons in need of
protection under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27 [the IRPA].
[3]
Mr. and Mrs. Murrizi are citizens of Albania, who
had been living in Greece prior to their arrival in Canada. Their two children,
Prisila and Tezika, are dual citizens of Greece and Albania. Mrs. Murrizi and
the two children came to Canada in June 2012 and made their refugee claims in
July 2012. Mr. Murrizi arrived in October 2012 and made his refugee claim in
November 2012.
[4]
Mrs. Murrizi’s basis of claim narrative, as
adopted by her husband and children, indicates that the Applicants fear persecution
in Greece and Albania due to a blood feud between her extended family and the
Gjoni family. The origins of the blood feud began in October 2011, when Mrs.
Murrizi’s cousin killed a man named Tonin Gjoni in Albania. Following the
murder, the Gjoni family declared that they would seek blood feud revenge on the
Luli family.
[5]
In addition to the fear of persecution outlined
in his wife’s narrative, Mr. Murrizi indicated in his narrative that his
extended family was also engaged in a blood feud with the Ndoci family and that
he feared persecution in Albania and Greece on this basis as well. The origins
of that blood feud began in 1998 when Dod Ndoci killed one of Mr. Murrizi’s
cousins. The Ndoci and Murrizi families have been unable to reconcile the blood
feud and the Ndoci family has indicated that if no reconciliation is reached,
every male member of the Murrizi family will be killed.
[6]
The Applicants’ claims were joined and heard together
by the RPD on September 24, 2015. The RPD member considered the joint
applications and dismissed the respective claims in a single set of reasons. The
Applicants subsequently filed the present application, raising a number of
issues before the Court. In my view, the determinative issue is whether the RPD
erred by not considering each respective claim individually and on its own
merits
[7]
The RPD can, and often must, deal with multiple
claimants in a single decision (R. 55, Refugee Protection Division Rules,
SOR/2012-256; Ramnauth v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2004 FC 233 (FC) at para 9). However, the jurisprudence is unequivocal that if
one of those claims raises distinct issues, it must be addressed separately (Retnem
v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] FCJ No 428 (FCA)
at paras 5-6; Csonka v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
[2001] FCJ No 1294 (FC) at paras 25-30; Babos v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 346; Ali v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration); 2015 FC 1061 at paras 24-26).
[8]
In this respect, I agree with the Applicants
that the RPD erred by failing to consider the distinct elements of Mr.
Murrizi’s claim. These elements, in the form of the additional blood feud with
the Ndoci family, were squarely before the RPD, as confirmed by Mr. Murrizi’s
basis of claim narrative, as well as the transcript of the September 24, 2015
hearing.
[9]
Nonetheless, the RPD failed to address this
distinct issue separately from the harm outlined in Mrs. Murrizi’s claim;
namely, the blood feud with the Gjoni family.
[10]
For this reason, the application will be allowed
and the matter will be returned to the RPD for redetermination by a differently
constituted panel.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that
1.
The Application is allowed and the matter is
sent back to be heard by a different decision maker.
2.
No question is certified.
"Glennys L. McVeigh"
Email this Content