Date: 20061003
Docket: IMM-1688-06
Citation: 2006
FC 1173
Ottawa, Ontario, October 3, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington
BETWEEN:
MAHNAZ ALLAFZADEH,
MOHAMMED REZA GHOLIZADEH AGHDAM,
BINESH GHOLIZADEH AGHDAM,
BAHAREH GHOLIZADEH AGHDAM
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Immigration
to a western country from a male dominated society with a state religion can
give rise to intense personal confrontation.
[2]
Ms.
Allafzadeh, her husband and their children emigrated from Iran to the Netherlands. While there, she and the children converted
from Islam to Christianity. Her husband reacted violently, denouncing her
within the sizeable Islamic community there. On the advice of a social worker,
she and the children fled to Canada and claimed refugee status.
[3]
In a very
short decision, no more than one and a half pages, the member of the Refugee
Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board found Ms. Allafzadeh
and her children were citizens of both Iran and the Netherlands. She held they were not in need of
international protection, as the documentary evidence established that the Netherlands is a democracy with police
and judicial systems capable of protecting its citizens throughout the entire
country. Ms. Allafzadeh had not approached the police to complain about her
husband, and so did not rebut the presumption that the state was able to
protect her.
[4]
This is a
judicial review of that decision. Two major points were raised in argument. One
is that the decision did not contain an analysis such as to allow the
unsuccessful applicants to understand exactly why they were rejected. The other
is that the decision did not take into account the Gender Guidelines issued by
the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board, particularly relevant since Ms.
Allafzadeh comes from a culture and religion where the husband is said to enjoy
absolute reign.
[5]
I find no
basis for the allegation that the analysis within the decision was inadequate.
Four country reports with respect to the Netherlands were specifically identified. The member
cannot be accused of picking and choosing from the material therein. All
reports overwhelmingly support the proposition that the Netherlands is an active democracy with a
complete police and court administration. Unfortunately, it appears to be a
frailty of the human condition, worldwide, that there is domestic violence
against women and discrimination against minorities. The documentation
indicates that the Netherlands is not immune from these
phenomena. However, vigorous steps are in place to combat them.
[6]
Although
the Gender Guidelines were not mentioned, there is a presumption that the
member took them into consideration (Karanja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2006 FC 574, [2006] F.C.J. No. 717 (QL)). It should also be kept in mind that,
to a large extent, they deal with trauma and other issues which might inhibit a
woman from clearly stating her case. However, there was no such difficulty here,
and she was believed. Risk of domestic violence from her husband because of her
religious conversion is not in doubt.
[7]
Rightly or
wrongly, one may not reduce the risk of domestic violence by simply fleeing to
another country. In Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, the
Supreme Court noted that international refugee law serves as a backup to the
protection owed a national by her own state. It cannot come into issue if
protection is available in that state. It is not enough that Ms. Allafzadeh has
a subjective fear; there must be an objective basis to that fear. As stated by Justice La Forest at paragraph 50:
…clear and convincing confirmation of a
state’s inability to protect must be provided…Absent some evidence, the claim
should fail, as nations should be presumed capable of protecting their
citizens. Security of nationals is, after all, the essence of sovereignty.
[8]
The only
evidence proffered in this case of a general nature was that the Netherlands,
just like every other country, has problems with domestic violence and discrimination
against minorities, but it is dealing with it. The only evidence personal to
Ms. Allafzadeh, which evidence was accepted, was that she was told by a social
worker that it was useless to go to the police, and that she should flee.
Unfortunately, that was bad advice and does not constitute evidence of a
“complete breakdown of state apparatus…” as per Ward, above, at
paragraph 50.
[9]
Having
found that the applicants were entitled to protection in the Netherlands, it was not necessary for the
member to consider their situation should they be returned to Iran.
[10]
Although
counsel for the applicants proposed a question of general importance with
respect to the Gender Guidelines, the facts of this case do not give rise to
any issue which could support an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.
[11]
Although
the pleadings and argument were in French, at the request of counsel these
reasons are first issued in English as Ms. Allafzadeh and her children have
some knowledge of that language.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1.
The
application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection
Division, Immigration Refugee Board, dated 2 March 2006, in its file numbers
MA5-05594, MA5-05595, MA5-05596 and MA5-05597, is dismissed.
2.
There is
no question of general importance to certify.
“Sean Harrington”
Email this Content