Szamko v. Canada (Minister of citizenship and immigration), 2003 FC 1093

Date: 20030922

Docket: IMM-4864-02

Citation: 2003 FC 1093

Toronto, Ontario, September 22^nd, 2003

Present:           The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan                                      

BETWEEN:

                                                                 SANDOR SZAMKO

                                                                 MONIKA ONODI

                                                         MALVIN MARIA SZAMKO

                                                                                                                                                      Applicants

                                                                                 and

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                 Mr. Sandor Szamko, Ms. Monika Onodi and Ms. Malvin Maria Szamko (the "Applicants") seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board"), dated September 10, 2002. In its decision, the Board determined the Applicants not to be Convention refugees.

[2]                 The Applicants are all citizens of Hungary. Mr. Szamko and Ms. Onodi are co-habiting in a common law relationship and arrived in Canada on June 28, 2000. Ms. Szamko arrived on November 24, 2000. Each of the Applicants made their refugee claim upon their arrival. The Applicants based their claim on their fear of persecution on the ground of race, that is Roma ethnicity.

[3]                 The Board found, upon a review of all the evidence including the oral testimony and documentary evidence, that the Applicants had failed to show that they had suffered persecution, as opposed to discrimination, in Hungary. The Board found that the Applicants lacked credibility.

[4]                 It is well established that a decision of the Board in determining Convention refugee status is entitled to a high degree of deference. In Conkova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [2001] F.C.J. No. 300 online: QL (FCCB), Justice Pelletier (as he then was) stated the following:

The standard of review of decisions of the CRDD is generally patent unreasonableness except for questions involving the interpretation of a statute when the standard becomes correctness. Sivasamboo v. Canada [1995] 1 F.C. 741 (T.D.), (1994) 87 F.T.R. 46, Pushpanathan v. Canada [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, (1998) 160 D.L.R. (4th) 193 The issue here is the CRDD's assessment of the evidence, a matter clearly within its mandate and its expertise. The view which the CRDD took of the evidence was one which could reasonably be taken, just as the opposing view could also reasonably be taken. The evidence, as is so often the case, is ambiguous and equivocal. Some elements support the applicants' position, others undermine it. The CRDD's task is to consider all the elements (which does not require that specific mention be made of every piece of evidence which is reviewed) to weigh it and to come to a conclusion. As long as its conclusion is not one which is wrong on its face, it is not patently unreasonable. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act) v. Southam Inc . [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748, (1996) 144 D.L.R. (4^th). ...

[5]                 In my opinion, the decision presently under review is supported by the evidence contained in the record. There is no error arising from the Board's consideration of the evidence or its ultimate conclusion on credibility which is a key factor in the determination of a claim for Convention refugee status. There is no basis for this Court's intervention. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel advised that there is no question for certification arising.

                                                  ORDER

The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.

      "E. Heneghan"

                                                                                                           J.F.C.                           

                   FEDERAL COURT

    Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                              IMM-4864-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:              SANDOR SZAMKO

MONIKA ONODI

MALVIN MARIA SZAMKO

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                      TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:           SEPTEMBER 22, 2003    

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:        HENEGHAN J.

DATED:                       SEPTEMBER 22, 2003

APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Peter Ivanyi

For the Applicants

Ms. Lisa Hutt

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:        Rochon Genova

Barristers and Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario

For the Applicants                               

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent

FEDERAL COURT

            Date: 20030922

   Docket: IMM-4864-02

BETWEEN:

SANDOR SZAMKO

MONIKA ONODI

MALVIN MARIA SZAMKO

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                  Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER