Jara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-5330-97

                                                                                                                   Date: 19980916

                                                                                                         Docket: IMM-5330-97

Between:

                                       OSVALDO DAVID VERDUGO JARA

                                    DAVID ANDRES VERDUGO BARRIOS

                                    CECILIA DEL CAR BARRIOS LUENGO

                                                                                                                            Applicants

                                                                  - and -

                            MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                         Respondent

                                                  REASONS FOR ORDER

TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:

[1]         This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Division determining that the applicants are not Convention refugees.

[2]         The applicants allege that they fear returning to Chile because the principal applicant is on a "blacklist" of people who are denied work because of their dissident activities.

[3]         After the first time he came to Canada, when his refugee claim was rejected, the applicant returned to Chile in August 1992.

[4]         In December 1992 he was hired by Office Souportt, a firm where he worked on call for two years. He was elected president of the union and took part in a strike in January 1993. At that time, the police intervened to expel the strikers who were occupying the firm's premises, and the applicant was detained at the Commissariat and mistreated by the police officers.

[5]         A similar incident occurred in December 1993. Subsequently, in December 1994, he got a contract working for a firm named Atlas. In July 1995, at the end of his contract, he was informed that it would not be renewed because of his background as a political agitator. Thereafter, the applicant was unable to find another job and left Chile again eight months later and returned to Canada.

[6]         The Refugee Division determined that the applicant had not proved that his problems finding work stemmed from the fact that his name was on an alleged "blacklist" drawn up for the financial sector, setting out the names of persons considered undesirable because they had engaged in union activities.

[7]         The Refugee Division noted, after examining the documentary evidence, that Chile has a free market economy in which union associations are accepted. The fact that the applicant had obtained a job in a financial institution in 1994 contradicts the allegation that his name is on a "blacklist". The Refugee Division determined that the applicant had not established that if he were to return to Chile there was a reasonable or serious possibility that he would be faced with unemployment for a reason related to the definition of a Convention refugee.

[8]         In my opinion, the Refugee Division could reasonably have concluded from the evidence that the principal applicant had not established that there was a system in Chile for denying people employment. Despite the applicant's allegation regarding his name being on a "blacklist", nonetheless this is pure conjecture, and absent any credible evidence, the Refugee Division was justified in doubting the existence of the "blacklist".

[9]         While the applicant did experience an anti-union incident with his last employer, a single incident is not sufficient to conclude that a system has been established, particularly since the documentary evidence indicates that the right of association is generally protected and no violation of union rights has been reported.

[10]       With respect to the incidents of police brutality, the applicant himself said that he did not fear being harassed by the police again for having participated in demonstrations, apart from which the police have never bothered him. Accordingly, the Refugee Division had no reason to refer to those incidents, since they are not related to the fear of persecution if he returns to Chile, which is based on difficulties in finding a job because of his union activities in the past, and not on a fear of arbitrary detention or police brutality because of his activities.

[11]       Accordingly, there is no ground for this Court to intervene. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

                                                                                                      Danièle Tremblay-Lamer       

   JUDGE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

September 16, 1998.

Certified true translation

Bernard Olivier

                                                FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                               TRIAL DIVISION

                           NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT NO:                                          IMM-5330-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                             OSVALDO DAVID VERDUGO JARA et al. v. MCI

PLACE OF HEARING:                        MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

DATE OF HEARING:                           SEPTEMBER 10, 1998

REASONS FOR ORDER OF TREMBLAY-LAMER J.

DATED:                                                 SEPTEMBER 16, 1998

APPEARANCES:

William Sloan

FOR THE APPLICANTS

Marie-Nicole Moreau

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

William Sloan

FOR THE APPLICANTS

Odette Bouchard

Morris Rosenberg                                                                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario