Date: 20031126
Docket: IMM-3781-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1386
Vancouver, British Columbia, this 26th day of November, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
DRAHOMIRA HOLUBOVA
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Drahomira Holubova has asked me to overturn a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board in which the Board vacated Ms. Holubova's refugee status. She argues that the Board made a number of serious errors in the course of arriving at its conclusion that she had misled the Board by failing to disclose her criminal convictions in the Czech Republic. She asks, by way of this application for judicial review, for a new hearing before a different panel of the Board.
[2] I can find no error on the Board's part and must, therefore, dismiss Ms. Holubova's application.
[3] Ms. Holubova was convicted of theft in 1995 and robbery in 1996. She arrived in Canada in 1997, along with her spouse and children. The family claimed refugee status on the grounds that they feared persecution based on their Romani ethnicity. The Board granted them refugee status in 1998. Canadian officials learned about the robbery conviction shortly thereafter when Interpol forwarded an International Warrant for Arrest in respect of Ms. Holubova. Ms. Holubova failed to mention any convictions in her Personal Information Form (PIF).
[4] The Minister took steps to vacate Ms. Holubova's refugee status in 1999 pursuant to ss. 69.2(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2. In 2000, a panel of the Board rejected the Minister's application. The Minister applied for, and successfully obtained, judicial review in this Court, and the Court ordered a new hearing on the issue. In June 2002, the Board granted the Minister's application to vacate Ms. Holubova's refugee status, but maintained the status of the rest of the family. It is that decision that Ms. Holubova now challenges.
I. Issue
[5] The sole issue is whether the Board made serious errors in the course of arriving at its conclusion that Ms. Holubova misled it by failing to disclose her convictions.
[6] Ms. Holubova maintains that she was not aware of her robbery conviction in 1996 and, therefore, should not be penalized for failing to disclose it in her PIF or mention it in her testimony. The Board concluded otherwise.
[7] The Board found inconsistencies between Ms. Holubova's testimony and that of her spouse as to whether she had actually been taken into police custody in respect of the robbery charge. It also concluded that it was unlikely that she was unaware of her 1996 conviction given that she did not leave the Czech Republic until more than a year later. Further, Ms. Holubova's sister, her co-accused, had also been convicted and was serving a term of imprisonment for the same offence. In addition, Ms. Holubova's conviction was appealed and the Board naturally wondered how an appeal could be launched without her being aware that she had actually been convicted. Finally, the Board found Ms. Holubova's testimony to be evasive from which it drew an adverse inference.
[8] In the end, the Board concluded that Ms. Holubova may have come to Canada not to avoid persecution, but to avoid serving her sentence. It decided that the Minister, had he been aware of her convictions, might well have sought to exclude her from the refugee claim process under Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 no. 6 for having committed a serious, non-political crime. The Board declared Ms. Holubova not to be a refugee.
[9] I can find no error in the Board's assessment of the evidence before it or its conclusion that Ms. Holubova withheld her convictions from the Board. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
[10] I must add that Ms. Holubova's robbery conviction has now been erased on the grounds that she was not represented at the time by counsel of her choice. Further, the Czech Republic is no longer seeking her extradition. Ms. Holubova argued that the Board did not consider this evidence. However, the main question is not whether there is any live issue about her criminality. What is important is whether there was a factual foundation for the Minister's claim that Ms. Holubova had misled the Board. Again, I can find no error in the Board's affirmative conclusion.
[11] Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
Judge
Email this Content