Date: 20061110
Docket: IMM-2133-06
Citation: 2006 FC 1369
Vancouver, British Columbia, November
10, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
JIOJI NIULEVU TIKO and
ELENOA
MERESIANA VUKIDONU TIKO
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
applicants are a married couple, who are citizens of Fiji. They
alleged that they face persecution in that country by virtue of the fact that
Mr. Tiko is of mixed Chinese and ethnic Fijian ancestry. The Refugee Protection
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected their applications for
refugee protection, finding Mr. Tiko’s claim to have been targeted by ethnic
Fijians because of his partial Chinese ethnicity not to be credible. Moreover,
the Board found that, in any event, adequate state protection was available to
the couple in Fiji.
[2]
The
applicants then sought a Pre-removal Risk Assessment (or PRRA), alleging the
same risk that had been asserted before the Refugee Protection Division. This
is an application for judicial review of the negative PRRA decision.
Did the PRRA Officer
Ignore Relevant Evidence?
[3]
The
applicants assert that the PRRA officer ignored, or read selectively, two
newspaper articles that allegedly establish that Chinese farmers were being
targeted by ethnic Fijians, and that the police were unable or unwilling to
assist them.
[4]
A
review of the PRRA officer’s decision discloses that the officer made specific
reference to one of the articles in his analysis, noting that the article
referred to incidents of violence against a specific group of Chinese farmers,
and not to the Chinese community in general.
[5]
The
officer also noted that the article demonstrated a willingness on the part of
the Fijian police authorities to work with the Chinese community to assist the
victims.
[6]
A
review of the officer’s analysis discloses that the officer clearly weighed the
evidence contained in the newspaper article, along with all of the other
evidence relating to country conditions within Fiji for the
ethnic Chinese, and found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a
general pattern of violence against, and persecution of, the Chinese minority.
As a consequence, I am not persuaded that the officer erred in his treatment of
this evidence.
[7]
While
the officer did not make specific reference to the second newspaper article in
his decision, the content of the second article is very similar to the article
that was discussed in the officer’s analysis. As a result, the failure of the
officer to make explicit reference to the second article is not material.
The Affidavit from the
Village Elder
[8]
The
applicants also submit that the PRRA officer failed to properly consider the
contents of an affidavit from an elder in their village, which, they say,
confirms that they face a risk of persecution based on Mr. Tiko’s partial
Chinese ethnicity, should they return to Fiji.
[9]
Once
again, a review of the officer’s decision reveals that the officer specifically
referred to and considered the affidavit, and concluded that it was of limited
probative value. The officer gave a clear explanation as to why he found the
affidavit to be of limited assistance, notably because it failed to demonstrate
any specific threat to the applicants. The PRRA officer’s explanation on this
point was entirely reasonable.
[10]
What
the applicants are really asking is to have the Court re-weigh this evidence.
That is not the task for the Court on judicial review: (see Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).
The Officer’s
Consideration of the Situation of the Applicants’ Relatives
[11]
Finally,
the applicants say that the officer erred in concluding that they were not at
risk, based on the fact that their relatives, including their three adult
children, have been able to continue to live in Fiji, without any
significant problems.
[12]
The
applicants say that they are at risk because of the fact that they are wealthy
landowners and farmers, and because ethnic Fijians resent non-ethnic Fijians
owning land. None of the relatives referred to by the officer are land-owning
farmers, and thus the fact that they have been able to continue to live in Fiji without
significant problems is therefore not relevant to the risk faced by the applicants
themselves.
[13]
The
officer’s comments with respect to the applicants’ relatives must be read in
context. The comments follow the officer’s observation that the country
condition information does not establish a systemic or societal persecution of
Fijians of Chinese origin, and that there was a distinct absence of objective
country condition information indicating that the Chinese community was under
threat in Fiji. It was in
this context that the officer made his comments regarding the fact that the applicants’
relatives had been able to continue to live in Fiji without any
apparent problems.
[14]
Read
in context, the officer’s comments were entirely reasonable. Moreover,
elsewhere in the decision, the officer clearly turned his mind to the specific
profile of the applicants in determining that the evidence did not establish
that they did faced a serious possibility of risk should they return to Fiji.
Conclusion
[15]
As
a consequence, I am not persuaded that the PRRA officer erred as alleged by the
applicants. Moreover, I am satisfied that when the decision is read as a whole,
it was reasonable. As a result, the application for judicial review is
dismissed.
Certification
[16]
Neither
party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This
application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No
serious question of general importance is certified.
“Anne
Mactavish”
Email this Content