[1] Tamas Boldizsar and Angela Boldizsarne are Hungarian citizens who claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country because of Mr. Boldizsar's Roma ethnicity. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected their applications for refugee protection because the presiding member found that Mr. and Mrs. Boldizsar had not provided credible evidence to support their claims. The Board also found that they failed to rebut the presumption that state protection would be available to them in Hungary.
[2] Mr. and Mrs. Boldizsar now seek to have the Board's decision set aside, asserting that a number of the Board's credibility findings were patently unreasonable. They further assert that the Board erred in its assessment of whether state protection was available to the couple as a result of its selective use of country condition information and its faulty analysis of the issue.
Mr. and Mrs. Boldizsar's Allegations
[3] Mrs. Boldizsarne did not testify at the hearing. Mr. Boldizsar described several attacks that he said occurred over a period of a number of years. In each case, Mr. Boldizsar says he was attacked by groups of skinheads or racists because of his Roma ethnicity. On one occasion, Mr. Boldizsar's wife was also assaulted, allegedly because of her relationship to him.
[4] Mr. Boldizsar testified that he faced discrimination in the educational system and in his employment in Hungary due to his race. While still in high school, Mr. Boldizsar says that he was abused by the Kucsi gang, who cut his hand and told him that he should leave the school. Mr. Boldizsar did not report this assault to his teacher or to the police.
[5] In June of 1994, Mr. Boldizsar says that he was walking home from a bar with a friend
when he was beaten by members of the Kratosz gang of skinheads. Mr. Boldizsar says that he reported this assault to the police, but that he was told that he could not expect any help because he was Roma.
[6] Mr. and Mrs. Boldizsar were married in 1999. According to Mr. Boldizsar, Mrs. Boldizsarne's family had difficulty accepting her choice of a Rom as husband. The couple also had problems going out in public. In 1998, before they were married, Mr. and Mrs. Boldizsar were out together for the evening when they were attacked by members of the Kratosz gang. Mr. Boldizsar says that he was beaten, and that an attempt was made to rape Mrs. Boldizsarne.
[7] In October of 2000, Mr. Boldizsar stopped at a gas station. While he was in the station paying for his gas, a group of skinheads set fire to his car. This last incident prompted the couple to flee Hungary, which they did in February of 2001 when they came to Canada and made their refugee claims.
The Board's Decision
[8] In a lengthy and detailed decision, the Board found that much of Mr. Boldizsar's testimony was not credible, based, in part, on inconsistencies between the couple's PIF and Mr. Boldizsar's oral testimony. The presiding member also found that certain aspects of Mr. Boldizsar's story were implausible. As a result, the Board found that the alleged attacks by skinheads simply did not happen.
[9] The Board also found that the couple's claim was further undermined by the fact that Mr. Boldizsar made a number of trips to other European countries. Although these trips occurred during the period in which Mr. Boldizsar was allegedly being attacked by skinheads, he did not seek refugee protection in any of these other countries.
[10] The Board noted that no documents were produced by the couple prior to the hearing to support their claim. When he was asked about this at the hearing, Mr. Boldizsar testified that he could get copies of medical and police reports if the Board wanted them, and the presiding member afforded the couple additional time to file these reports after the hearing was completed. No such reports were ever provided to the Board.
[11] Mr. Boldizsar's testimony regarding his attempts to access state protection was also rejected by the Board. The Board noted inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his efforts to obtain police assistance following the attacks. The Board also rejected as implausible Mr. Boldizsar's claim that he sought the assistance of the Roma Self-Government Organization, and that a secretary in the organization's local office told him that he should just close everything up and go abroad.
[12] Finally, the Board examined the evidence relating to country conditions, finding that the Hungarian authorities were making serious efforts to protect Roma citizens. As a result, the Board found that Mr. and Mrs. Boldizsar failed to rebut the presumption that a state will be able to protect its citizens.
Issues
[13] The applicants raise two issues on this application:
1. Whether the Board's credibility findings are patently unreasonable; and
2. Whether the Board erred in its treatment of the issue of state protection.
Are the Board's credibility findings patently unreasonable?
[14] The Immigration and Refugee Board has a well-established expertise in the determination of questions of fact, including the evaluation of the credibility of refugee claimants. Indeed, such determinations lie at the very heart of the Board's jurisdiction. As a trier of fact, the Board is entitled to make reasonable findings regarding the credibility of a claimant's story, based on implausibilities, common sense, and rationality. Accordingly, before a finding of fact made by the Board will be set aside by this Court, it must be demonstrated that such finding is patently unreasonable: Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, at paragraph 40, and Aguebor v. Canada (Minster of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).
[15] The respondent concedes that the Board erred in finding the statement attributed to Mr. Boldizsar that the police openly admitted to being corrupt to be implausible. A review of the transcript discloses that, in actual fact, Mr. Boldizsar stated that the police simply said that they would not help him. It was Mr. Boldizsar's opinion that this was because they were corrupt. Mr. Boldizsar did not say that the police themselves stated that they were corrupt.
[16] I am also satisfied that the Board's reasoning with respect to the obligation to seek police assistance created something of a 'Catch 22' for Mr. Boldizsar. The Board found it to be implausible that Mr. Boldizsar would have continued to seek police assistance when past experience had led him to believe that none would be forthcoming. In the same paragraph, the Board found it to be equally implausible that Mr. Boldizsar would not seek state protection when he had allegedly suffered a vicious beating.
[17] I have examined the evidence relating to the other disputed credibility findings. Mr. Boldizsar's testimony was often confusing, and, at some points he appeared to contradict himself. In these circumstances, while I might not have come to the same conclusion as did the Board on some issues, I cannot say that any of the Board's other credibility findings were patently unreasonable.
[18] The question then is whether the two errors that I have identified in the Board's plausibility findings were sufficiently material to the Board's analysis to warrant setting aside the Board's decision. In my view, the errors were not sufficiently material, and that, as a result, the Board's decision should stand.
[19] There were a number of other reasons why the Board chose not to believe Mr. Boldizsar, including the inconsistencies in his story. By way of example, in discussing the 1998 assault in his PIF, Mr. Boldizsar stated that there would have been no point in going to the police. In his oral testimony, however, he insisted that he did go to the police, but that the police failed to do anything for him because he was Roma.
[20] The Board was also clearly influenced by the fact that during the time frame when Mr. Boldizsar claims that he was being regularly assaulted by skinheads, he made trips to Romania, Austria and Yugoslavia without seeking refugee protection in any of these countries. (In fact, although not mentioned in the Board's decision, the transcript discloses that Mr. Boldizsar also made trips to Germany and Lithuania during this same period, once again without seeking refugee protection in either of these countries.) As the Board noted, none of these trips were mentioned by Mr. Boldizsar in his PIF, and he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for why he omitted to mention them.
[21] The Board also had concerns with respect to Mr. Boldizsar's credibility in light of the fact that no police or medical certificates were produced which would have assisted in corroborating his story. These concerns were obviously heightened when no such documents were produced after the hearing, despite Mr. Boldizsar's undertaking to provide them to the Board.
[22] As a result, I am satisfied that the Board's finding that Mr. and Mrs. Boldizsar had failed to adduce sufficient credible evidence to support their claims should not be disturbed. In light of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to address the issue of state protection.
Certification
[23] Neither party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No serious questionof general importance is certified.
"A. Mactavish"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-6648-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: BOLDIZSAR, TAMAS
BOLDIZSARNE, ANGELA
(a.k.a. Angela Boldizsarne Bodi)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 25, 2004
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: MACTAVISH J.
DATED: AUGUST 30, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Lisa R. G. Winter-Card
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Alexis Singer
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lisa R. G. Winter-Card
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20040830
Docket: IMM-6648-03
BETWEEN:
BOLDIZSAR, TAMAS
BOLDIZSARNE, ANGELA
(a.k.a. Angela Boldizsarne Bodi)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Email this Content