[1] Bisser Bisserov's background is Turkish, but he grew up in Bulgaria. Like hundreds of thousands of other ethnic Turks, he left Bulgaria at the end of the 1980's because of the intolerable conditions he endured. Mr. Bisserov went to Belgium with his wife. In 1994, they decided to return to Bulgaria to visit his wife's ailing and aged grandmother and show off their three-year-old daughter. He claims that Bulgarian officials seized their passports and prevented them from returning to Belgium. He began farming, but says that he encountered a series of difficulties over the years until 1999, when he fled to Mexico, then to the United States, and ultimately to Canada. He claimed refugee status in the U.S. and, when he failed, he then made a claim here. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board turned him down. The Board analyzed all the elements of Mr. Bisserov's claim and concluded that he had produced insufficient reliable evidence to support it. He argues that the Board made a number of serious errors and asks, by way of this application for judicial review, for a new hearing before a different panel. I cannot agree.
[2] Reduced to its essence, Mr. Brisserov's claim of persecution is founded on three allegations of violence. He says that, in 1996, merchants refused to sell him feed for his animals because he was a Turk. When he complained, the staff called the police, who arrested and beat him. Two years later, someone torched his car. Later the same year, he found that some of his livestock had been shot.
[3] The Board doubted that Mr. Bisserov would have been identified as a Turk or singled out for any mistreatment. It did not understand why he did not report the torching incident to the police, but then complained to them about the shooting of his animals, even though he suspected them of being the gunmen. He produced no documentary or photographic evidence whatsoever of any of his main allegations. Overall, the Board found Mr. Bisserov's testimony unconvincing and concluded that the evidence before it did not support his claim of persecution. In fact, it also doubted his description of the events leading to his return to Bulgaria in 1994 and the circumstances that prevented him from returning to Belgium.
[4] Mr. Bisserov argued that the Board had made a number of errors in the course of its fact-finding, and had come to patently unreasonable conclusions. However, in my view, Mr. Bisserov's claim turns solely on the quality of the evidence before the Board. Clearly, the Board has the undisputed jurisdiction to weigh that evidence. I have reviewed the record and cannot conclude that the Board's analysis was unreasonable. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for certification, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4844-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: BISSER IVANOV BISSEROV
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Alex Billingsley
FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Claire le Riche
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Brian Ibrahim Cintosun
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content