Date: 20050511
Docket: IMM-4856-04
Citation: 2005 FC 662
Ottawa, Ontario, this 11th day of May, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SNIDER
BETWEEN:
DUMITRU LECIA
PETRA LECIA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
SNIDER J.
[1] The Applicants, Dumitru Lecia and Petra Lecia, are a married couple from Romania. They claim refugee protection due to their well-founded fear of persecution based on their religious beliefs as members of the Pentecostal church. The Applicants arrived in Canada on October 5, 2000, and made their claim for refugee status on July 12, 2001. In a decision dated April 22, 2004, a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Protection Division) ("the Board") determined that the Applicants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
[2] The Applicants seek judicial review of this decision.
Issues
[3] Although the Applicants appear to raise a number of issues, they can be distilled to the following:
Did the Board misapprehend the claim by characterizing the heart of their claim as property dispute?
Did the Board err in a material way in concluding that the Applicants had stated that there was no Pentecostal Church in Bucharest?
Did the Board misapprehend or ignore evidence with respect to certain of the findings of the Board?
Analysis
[4] All of the issues relate to findings of the Board that are squarely within its expertise. Accordingly, the standard of review is patent unreasonableness, meaning that I can only overturn the decision if it is unsupported by the evidence.
[5] The Board's decision rested on the following key determinations:
The Applicants' fear of persecution because of their Pentecostal faith is not supported by the documentary evidence;
The heart of their claim is a property dispute;
With respect to the property dispute, the Applicants have repeatedly gone to the courts to protect their property rights and have not shown that court judgments are not upheld in Romania;
Internal flight alternatives ("IFA") to places elsewhere in Romania are available to the Applicants;
The Applicants' delay in leaving Romania and in making their refugee claim in Canada is not the expected behaviour of persons fearing return to Romania.
[6] Refugee claimants must establish their claim on both a subjective and objective basis. (Rajudeen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1984), 55 N.R. 129 (F.C.A.)). In this case, the Applicants failed to establish their claim on either basis. With respect first to the objective component of their claim, the Applicants failed to satisfy the Board that their fear of persecution on the basis of their Pentecostal faith was objectively well-founded. In reaching its conclusion, the Board had regard to the documentary evidence. While the Applicants disagreed with this conclusion, they did not refer me to documentary evidence that was ignored or misapprehended. I conclude that the Board did not err in finding that there was no objective basis for their claim on grounds of their religion. This is a determinative finding as, on this basis alone, the Board was entitled to reject the claim.
[7] The Applicants submit that the Board mischaracterized their claim as a "property dispute". Having reviewed the record and read the decision as a whole, I am satisfied that the Board understood the nature of their claim. Although the Applicants identified their religion as the reason for their persecution, the land dispute - based at least in part on their religion - was central to their claim. That is how the Board saw the evidence. While describing the heart of the claim, at one point in the decision, as a property dispute, the Board also took care to review the documentary evidence on treatment of Pentecostal Church members and, as indicated above, concluded that there was no objective basis to that claim. There was no misapprehension of the nature of the claim and no error by the Board in this regard.
[8] In its reasons, the Board states that it understood the Applicants to say there was no Pentecostal church in Bucharest. I agree with the Applicants that this is not correct; the Applicants said there was no Pentecostal church in their village. This is an error by the Board. However, this error amounts to a minor misstatement of the facts which was not a basis for any further findings and so is not significant enough to be determinative.
[9] In general, the Applicants submit the Board "exhibited an unreasonable zeal in drawing out the purported inconsistencies or implausibilities" in the testimony of the Applicants. The Board is not to be "over-vigilant in its microscopic examination of the evidence" (Attakora v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989) 99 N.R. 168). I disagree with the Applicants' assessment of the decision. In my view, the Board was careful to address all of the issues raised by the Applicants. Contrary to the view of the Applicants that this was an overzealous review of the evidence, I would characterize the approach of the Board as careful and thorough.
[10] More particularly, the Applicants submit that the Board ignored or misapprehended evidence with respect to a number of its findings, including the following:
The finding that they were never directly victimized;
The finding that internal flight alternatives within Romania are probably safe;
The conclusion that the female Applicant's mother was probably not struck intentionally on the head as a result of some sort of dispute;
The statement by the Board that both of the Applicants had "enjoyed modestly successful careers in the public sector".
[11] I have reviewed the record in respect of each of the errors alleged by the Applicants and am not persuaded that the Board erred. While the Applicants view the evidence differently, this does not constitute a misapprehension of the evidence. The interpretation of the evidence taken by the Board is not made without regard to the evidence. In respect of each of these matters, the record supports the findings of the Board. The Applicants are seeking to revisit the evidence and have it reweighed. However, that is not the task of this Court.
Conclusion
[12] In summary, there is no reason for this Court to intervene in the decision of the Board. The application will be dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification; none will be certified.
ORDER
This Court orders that:
The application is dismissed; and,
No question of general importance is certified.
"Judith A. Snider"
______________________________
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-4856-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: DUMITRU LECIA et al v. the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 5, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
DATED: May 11, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mario D. Bellissimo FOR APPLICANTS
A. Leena Jaakkimainen For Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mario D. Bellissimo FOR APPLICANTS
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content