Radonic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 375

Date: 20060323

Docket: IMM-3074-05

Citation: 2006 FC 375

Toronto, Ontario, March 23, 2006

PRESENT:      The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein

BETWEEN:

NIKO RADONIC

ESTELA MARIA BRANGE DE RADONIC

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for clarification and precision)

[1]                In 1958, the Applicants fled from Yugoslavia and were accepted as refugees in Italy. They then relocated to Argentina in 1960 and became citizens of Argentina. The principal Applicant joined the Union Civica Radical political party. He alleges that he suffered persecution from the ruling Justicialista Party since 1984. After a series of intimidations, beatings, and threatening phone calls, he went into hiding and finally fled to Canada.

[2]                The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) rejected the Applicant's claim by finding them not credible and that they failed to establish either a subjective or an objective fear of persecution.

[3]                The Applicants argue that the Board erred by:

a.    misapplying the evidence;

b.    engaging in speculation that memory loss by the Applicant means he will no longer be a target; and

c.    making an error in law by asking the Applicant to prove that the various acts of intimidation against him were interconnected.

[4]                Even if I were to accept the Applicants' contention on all three points, which I do not, I would still have to reject this application due to the Board's findings of re-availment and state protection.

[5]                The Board found that during several trips to Italy and Canada, the principal Applicant could, but did not, avail himself of the opportunity to claim refugee status and instead returned to Argentina each time. The Applicants only contention was that he was still healthy enough to fight his enemies. However, now that he has health problems he cannot continue the fight. This to my mind indicates only that he is involved in the political struggles of Argentina and belies any fears of persecution or need for protection. The Board's finding regarding re-availment is unassailable.

[6]                As far as a lack of state protection is concerned, the Applicant produced a complaint he had registered with the police but which was subsequently dismissed for lack of evidence. This is not too surprising as he reported telephone threats by parties unknown. He also advised the Board that a friend in the police later advised him that nothing further could be done to protect him and suggested that the Applicants leave the country.

[7]                This is not enough to rebut the presumption of state protection. The documentary evidence indicates that state protection is available in Argentina. Mere reporting to police and demonstrating that such efforts were unsuccessful is not enough to rebut the presumption (see Kadenko v. Canada(Solicitor General) (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4^th) 532). The Applicant failed to establish a) that he actively but unsuccessfully sought state protection and b) the reasons why the documentary evidence could not be trusted and relied upon.

[8]                Accordingly, this application cannot succeed.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed.

"K. von Finckenstein"

FEDERAL COURT

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           IMM-3074-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           NIKO RADONIC, ESTELA MARIA BRANGE DE RADONIC v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       March 22, 2006

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                             von Finckenstein J.       

DATED:                                              March 23, 2006

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: