Date: 20060728
Docket: IMM-6490-05
Citation: 2006 FC 930
Ottawa, Ontario, July 28, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson
BETWEEN:
ANTONIO JESUS LEON MARTINEZ
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Antonio Jesus Leon Martinez, a citizen of Venezuela, claimed status as a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) rejected his claim because it did not believe his testimony about central elements of his claim. Specifically, the Board found significant discrepancies between what Mr. Martinez told an immigration officer about his claim and what he later wrote in his Personal Information Form (PIF). Mr. Martinez had told an immigration officer that in May of 2002 an attempt was made to kidnap him, and that at that time the kidnappers took his sister, however they later released her. In his PIF, Mr. Martinez said that the kidnapping attempt was made in March or April of 2002, and that both he and his sister had been able to escape the would-be kidnappers. The Board also rejected Mr. Martinez' testimony that his father had learned that Mr. Martinez was on a police list of persons at risk of being kidnapped because Mr. Martinez was unable to verify this claim. Finally, the Board found that Mr. Martinez had an internal flight alternative in Cumana.
[2] On this application for judicial review, Mr. Martinez says that the Board erred in two respects. First, he says the Board erred when it found that he had been unable to verify that he was on a list of those at risk of being kidnapped because the Board made this finding without fully considering his explanation. Second, he says that the Board erred in concluding that he had an internal flight alternative because in so finding it again failed to consider his testimony as to why he could not avoid persecution in Cumana.
[3] I respectfully disagree that the Board erred as submitted.
[4] With respect to the first asserted error, the Board did consider Mr. Martinez' explanation that his father could not get a copy of the police list because his father belongs to the political opposition to the central government of Venezuela. The Board, however, rejected that explanation on the basis that documentary evidence established that local and state police forces maintain independence from the central government. This was not a patently unreasonable conclusion for the Board to reach. Based upon the rejection of Mr. Martinez's explanation for his failure to verify that he was on any list of potential victims, the undisputed discrepancies between the version of events told to the immigration officer and the version contained in Mr. Martinez' PIF, and his delay in claiming protection, the Board was entitled to conclude, as it did, that central elements of Mr. Martinez' claim were incredible and that there was no serious possibility that Mr. Martinez would be personally targeted for kidnapping, extortion or more serious harm in Venezuela. For the same reasons it was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that it was not likely that Mr. Martinez would be subjected to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Venezuela. These conclusions were fatal to Mr. Martinez' claim, and made consideration of the existence of an internal flight alternative unnecessary.
[5] Turning however to that finding, the evidence the Board is said to have ignored is Mr. Martinez' testimony that:
Q. Sir, one of the other issues in your protection claim is whether you would be able to relocate to another region or city in Venezuela and live there without fear of being harmed or kidnapped by these criminal groups or politically motivated groups, and again, that's an issue that's common with many refugee protection claims. Would it not be possible for you to relocate to the capital city of Caracas or to Cumana and live in one of these cities without fear of being harmed by these groups?
A. Moving to Caracas city I think would just be - - make it easier for them. And Cumana, well, it's - - like I say, my father is well known in the whole country so they would still know and I have family in Cumana and pretty much everywhere.
Q. And how is your family known throughout the country?
A. Pardon me?
Q. How is your family known throughout the country?
A. Known?
Q. Yes.
A. Most of them are politicians.
[6] As a matter of law, the Board is presumed to have considered all of the evidence before it, and I have doubt that this evidence was sufficiently cogent that the failure of the Board to specifically mention it gives rise to the inference that the testimony was ignored. However, in any event, Mr. Martinez' claim failed when his evidence of risk was not believed. Thus, any error with respect to the existence of an internal flight alternative was immaterial to the Board's decision.
[7] The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.
[8] Counsel posed no question for certification and I am satisfied that no question arises on this record.
JUDGMENT
[9] THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6490-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANTONIO JESUS LEON MARTINEZ
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JULY 25, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: DAWSON, J.
DATED: JULY 28, 2006
APPEARANCES:
MICHAEL BRODZKY FOR THE APPLICANT
LINDA CHEN FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHAEL BRODZKY FOR THE APPLICANT
BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR
TORONTO, ONTARIO
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content