Docket: IMM-5841-15
Citation:
2017 FC 90
Toronto, Ontario, January 25, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ZOLTANNE
HORVATH, BEATA GALAMB, ZOLTAN HORVATH, JUDITH, HORVATH, ZOLTAN HORVATH
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
The Horvath family arrived in Canada from
Hungary in two groups in 2014 and 2015. They claimed refugee protection because
of their fear of persecution based on their Roma ethnicity. A panel of the
Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed their claim for a lack of credible
evidence and their failure to provide sufficient proof that state protection
was not available to them in Hungary.
[2]
The Horvaths appealed the Board’s decision to
the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The RAD reviewed the evidence afresh and
dismissed their appeal. The RAD confirmed the Board’s findings on credibility
and state protection.
[3]
The Horvaths submit that the RAD’s decision should
be quashed because it unreasonably discounted their testimony about the
mistreatment they suffered in Hungary. Further, they contend that the RAD
overlooked evidence showing that they were unable to access state protection.
They ask me to order another panel of the RAD to reconsider their claims.
[4]
I can find no basis for overturning the RAD’s
decision. The RAD’s findings were supported by the evidence, so are, therefore,
not unreasonable.
[5]
I will deal with the RAD’s findings on alleged
persecution and the absence of state protection together.
II.
The RAD’s Decision
[6]
The RAD found that some of the Horvaths’
complaints amounted to allegations of discrimination, not persecution. The RAD
addressed only the more serious allegations and doubted the claimants’ credibility
for the following reasons:
•
The adult son and his common law spouse gave
differing testimony about an alleged assault by skinheads in 2009. The son gave
contradictory statements about whether he was hospitalized; his spouse said he
did not seek medical attention.
•
The adult son said he was attacked by skinheads
on a tram in 2013. In his written narrative, he said he went to the hospital.
However, in his oral testimony he said he did not go to the hospital, originally
because he was not bleeding and, later, because his mother treated his wounds.
[7]
In respect of state protection, the RAD found:
•
The claimants did not report any incidents of
mistreatment to the police until 2008.
•
The adult son refused to attend the police
station to report the 2008 assault.
•
The common law spouse gave inconsistent accounts
of an alleged sexual assault in 2008. She testified that the police did not
believe her. However, in her earlier narrative, she stated that she had gone to
the police who told her that they could not pursue an investigation without
witnesses. Those who had witnessed the incident refused to testify.
•
The evidence was not clear whether the adult son
reported the alleged 2009 assault.
•
In 2013, the police responded when contacted by
the father about an assault at Christmastime, but without a description of the
assailants, could not pursue the investigation any further.
[8]
The RAD found that the claimants’ evidence did
not show that they sought, and were then subsequently denied, state protection.
In the RAD’s view, in some cases they did not avail themselves of the
protection that was available to them; in others, there was little the police
could do.
[9]
The RAD also analyzed the evidence of general
conditions in Hungary and the state’s ability to protect its citizens. It
concluded that the claimants had failed to show that state protection would not
be reasonably available to them if they returned to Hungary.
III.
Were the RAD’s Credibility Findings
Unreasonable?
[10]
The claimants contend that the RAD seized on
minor discrepancies in their evidence and arrived at the unreasonable
conclusion that their claims of persecution were not credible.
[11]
I disagree. As described above, the RAD noted
unexplained contradictions in significant areas of the claimant’ evidence. In
particular, the evidence about whether they did or did not seek medical
attention was relevant to the severity of the alleged assaults. The claimants
have not shown that the RAD’s conclusions were unsupported by the evidence.
[12]
Regarding state protection, the RAD concluded
that the claimants did not show that state protection was unavailable to them
in Hungary. In my view, the RAD reasonably found that the fact that the police
were unable to pursue suspects without tangible evidence of identity did not
prove an unwillingness or inability to protect the claimants.
[13]
In a case where state protection is an issue,
the real question is whether, considering the whole of the evidence about the
state’s capacity to protect its citizens, the claimants will be exposed to a
serious risk of persecution if returned to their home country. Given the
evidence before it, I find that the RAD reasonably concluded that the claimants
had failed to satisfy that test.
IV.
Conclusion and Disposition
[14]
The RAD arrived at reasonable credibility
findings. Further, the RAD reasonably concluded that the evidence relating to
state protection did not show that the claimants would be exposed to a serious
risk of persecution if they returned to Hungary. Therefore, I must dismiss this
application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general
importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
Email this Content