Date: 20030226
Docket: IMM-988-02
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCT 247
Montréal, Quebec, February 26, 2003
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Gauthier
BETWEEN:
DOMBELE, Adelina
and
DOMBELE, Jemina Niar
and
DOMBELE, Gloria Niar
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated February 5, 2002, by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board).
[2] The applicant and her two daughters of minor age are citizens of Angola. The principal claimant, Eugène Mandel Epa-On'sal, is the husband of Adelina Dombele and the father of the other two applicants. He is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and worked for several years as secretary to the DRC ambassador to Angola. The principal claimant was awarded refugee status, as the Board said it was satisfied he had discharged his burden of proof in justifying a reasonable possibility of persecution should he return to Angola or the DRC.
[3] The Board refused to recognize the applicants as refugees because it did not believe they had a reasonable fear of being persecuted themselves if they were to return to Angola. Among other things, the Board noted that Adelina Dombele never mentioned having any problems with the Angolan authorities. The Board also states that the applicants did not provide evidence that they could not live elsewhere in Angola, outside the capital where the DRC embassy was located.
[4] The applicants argue that the Board should have considered that the persecution affecting the principal claimant could also affect them. During the hearing, their counsel even referred to the concept of "[translation] indirect persecution".
[5] The Court notes that in Pour-Shariati v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1997), 39 Imm. L.R. (2d) 103 (F.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal clearly stated that indirect persecution is not comparable to the persecution contemplated by the definition of Convention refugee, and that any claim based on it should be rejected.
[6] Be that as it may, having considered all the submissions by the applicants and the evidence in the record, it appears to me that the applicants have not discharged their burden of establishing that they do indeed have a well-founded fear of persecution. I do not think the Board erred in law or that its decision contains unreasonable or arbitrary findings of fact. The application for judicial review must therefore be dismissed. The parties agreed that this case does not raise any serious question for certification, and I agree.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Johanne Gauthier"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20030226
Docket: IMM-988-02
Between:
DOMBELE, Adelina
and
DOMBELE, Jemina Niar
and
DOMBELE, Gloria Niar
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-988-02
STYLE:
DOMBELE, Adelina
DOMBELE, Jemina Niar
DOMBELE, Gloria Niar
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 19, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: The Honourable Madam Justice Gauthier
DATED: February 26, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Lucie Fortin FOR THE APPLICANTS
Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lucie Fortin FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content