Date: 19981008
Docket: IMM-1462-97
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998
| Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DUBÉ |
Between:
Lev GUNIN
Marta GUNIN
Ina GUNIN
Alla GUNIN
Elizabeta GUNIN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
Date: 19981008
Docket: IMM-1462-97
Between:
Lev GUNIN
Marta GUNIN
Ina GUNIN
Alla GUNIN
Elizabeta GUNIN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Division (the "Division"), rendered on March 17, 1997, that the applicants, who are citizens of Israel, are not Convention refugees.
1. The Facts
[2] The principal applicant, Lev Gunin, his wife Alla Gunin, their children of minor age Marta and Ina Gunin, and the mother of the principal applicant, Élizabeth Gunin, are claiming refugee status by reason of their religion and their membership in a particular social group.
[3] The principal applicant and his mother are of Jewish nationality but are atheists. However, the spouse and children are of Russian nationality and the Christian religion. All of them immigrated to Israel in April 1991.
[4] The applicants" claim is that upon their arrival in Israel their neighbours attempted to convert them to Judaism. The children were frequently beaten and insulted by the other children in a non-religious childcare centre. At work, the principal applicant was beaten by his colleagues and mistreated by his superiors on the ground that he was neither Jewish nor circumcised. The wife had difficulty finding work and when she finally did find a job, she was insulted, beaten and sexually harassed. And the mother of the principal applicant was assaulted many times. Neither the police nor Amnesty International were receptive to the applicants" complaints.
2. The Refugee Division"s decision
[5] The Refugee Division found "[Translation ] no credibility in their stories, in which they claim to have been persecuted in Israel on account of their nationality, religion, membership in a particular social group and, particularly in the applicant"s case, on account of his political opinions". The Division added that "[Translation ] the documentation at our disposal indicates that the population in Israel joined in welcoming new immigrants from the former Soviet Union, giving them material assistance and helping them with the many formalities they had to fulfil in order to settle in their new community." The Division found "[Translation ] that the applicants are clearly exaggerating when they present a gloomy image of their country as a society engaged in a form of slavery...." Finally, the Division noted that "[Translation ] there are also many non-governmental organizations in Israel that assist people coming from the former Soviet Union, not only in their integration but also in the defence of their rights."
3. The applicants" submissions
[6] Counsel for the applicants criticized the Division"s decision on the grounds that it contained certain errors. The Division had preferred the documentary evidence to that provided by the applicants, without giving reasons for doing so; it had provided no analysis of the intrinsic quality of the testimony by the principal applicant before deciding that he lacked credibility; it had not considered the documentary evidence provided by the applicants; it had said there was no proof of persecution of immigrants of Russian origin in Israel, although a large number of such immigrants testify to the contrary; it had quoted some passages from certain documents while excluding others that are favourable to the applicants; and the Division"s decision was therefore patently unreasonable.
4. Conclusions
[7] The fundamental issue here is one of credibility, and the Refugee Division simply did not believe the applicants. It found that their testimony was improbable and exaggerated when confronted with the voluminous documentary evidence issued by reliable sources. It was fully within the Division"s discretion to sift through the evidence and to base its decision on that evidence which, in its opinion, corresponded most closely to the reality.1
[8] In so far as State protection is concerned, the documentary evidence establishes that the applicants could avail themselves of the assistance of the Israeli authorities. If, at worst, there was hostility or a lack of cooperation on the part of the local police, a multitude of other agencies exist to which the applicants could complain.
[9] As to the issue of credibility, it is not the Court"s function to substitute its own assessment for that of the Refugee Division, given that it is the Division that saw and heard the applicants and weighed the value of their testimony. Short of a patently unreasonable and decisive error in the conclusions of the Refugee Division, the Court is unable to intervene.
[10] Accordingly, this application for judicial review cannot be allowed.
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 8, 1998
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE: LEV GUNIN ET AL. V. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
| PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC |
| DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF DUBÉ J.
APPEARANCES:
JACQUES BEAUCHEMIN FOR THE APPLICANTS
JOCELYNE MURPHY FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ALARIE, LEGAULT, BEAUCHEMIN FOR THE APPLICANTS
PAQUIN, JOBIN, BRISSON & PHILPOT
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
__________________
1 See the comments by Noël J. in Victorov et al. v. M.C.I., IMM-5170-94, June 14, 1995.
Email this Content