Date: 20061123
Docket: IMM-899-06
Citation: 2006 FC 1400
Ottawa, Ontario, November 23, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
MARIA
DUCEAC
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Ms.
Maria Duceac is a citizen of Israel and a former resident of Romania. She arrived
in Canada in 2005 and claimed refugee protection on the basis that she had been
harassed and mistreated by immigration police in Israel. A panel of the Immigration
and Refugee Board heard and dismissed her claim because it was satisfied that
she could have obtained state protection in Israel.
[2]
Ms.
Duceac argues that the Board erred in finding that state protection was
available to her. She also submits that the Board erred in failing to consider
whether she was entitled to return to Romania. I can find no basis
for overturning the Board’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this
application for judicial review.
I.
Issues
- Did the Board err
in finding that state protection was available to Ms. Duceac in Israel?
- Did the Board err
in failing to consider whether Ms. Duceac was entitled to return to Romania?
II. Analysis
[3]
I
can overturn the Board’s decision only if I find that it was out of keeping
with the evidence before it, or if it made an error of law.
1. Did the Board err in finding that
state protection was available to Ms. Duceac in Israel?
[4]
The
Board found that immigrants to Israel sometimes face harassment and
discrimination, particularly on religious grounds. It accepted that Ms. Duceac,
as a Christian, may have experienced problems in the workplace. It also
accepted Ms. Duceac’s account of having been arrested, detained and assaulted
by immigration police in Israel. However, the Board found that she had made
insufficient efforts to obtain available state protection.
[5]
Ms.
Duceac stated that she required medical treatment after her encounter with the
immigration police. Immediately thereafter, she made a complaint to the police
complaints bureau, called Mahash. She was advised to make a written complaint
but, instead, recounted her story orally at the Mahash office. In turn, she
received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her that her complaint
had been investigated but would not result in any proceedings in the Criminal
Court. She was told that she could appeal that decision. She did not. Rather,
she decided to come to Canada.
[6]
In
concluding that state protection was available to Ms. Duceac, the Board noted
the following:
·
Israel is a
parliamentary democracy with an independent judiciary;
·
many
human rights groups and non-governmental organizations operate freely in Israel;
·
Israel imposes
disciplinary sanctions on police officers who mistreat citizens;
·
a
parliamentary committee is investigating excesses by the immigration police;
and
·
several
organizations could have assisted Ms. Duceac in pursuing her complaint or her
appeal.
[7]
The
Board concluded that Ms. Duceac had not taken reasonable steps to obtain the
state protection that was available to her. Based on the evidence before it, I
cannot conclude that the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
2. Did the Board err in failing to
consider whether Ms. Duceac was entitled to return to Romania?
[8]
The
Board stated that, having found that Ms. Duceac would not face persecution in
Israel and could return there, it was unnecessary to consider whether she was
entitled to return to Romania. Ms. Duceac argues that
the Board had a duty to consider her claim against both countries. I disagree.
[9]
Once
the Board concluded that Ms. Duceac could return to Israel, it was
unnecessary for it to decide whether she could return to Romania. On the
other hand, if she had established her refugee claim against Israel, the Board
would have had to go on to consider whether she could live in Romania: El Rafih
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 831, [2005]
F.C.J. No. 1036 (T.D.) (QL).
[10]
Accordingly,
I can find no basis for overturning the Board’s decision and must, therefore,
dismiss this application for judicial review. Counsel for Ms. Duceac proposed a
question for certification on the second issue but, in my view, it does not
involve a matter of general importance and I decline to state it.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS
that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content