Date: 20040722
Docket: IMM-5136-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1025
Ottawa, Ontario, this 22nd day of July, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
BESA MALJA
GENTI MALJA
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Besa Malja and her son, Genti, came to Canada from Albania in 2000. Ms. Malja says that her family was subjected to serious mistreatment by state authorities and the Socialist Party in Albania and claims refugee protection in Canada. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board reviewed the applicants' claims and dismissed them for a lack of credible and reliable evidence.
[2] Ms. Malja argues that the Board's adverse findings were unwarranted by the evidence and asks for a new hearing. I can find no basis for overturning the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
[3] Ms. Malja raised three issues:
1. Did the Board err when it found that the applicants' evidence was not credible?
2. Did the Board err when it discounted the value of a newspaper article submitted in support of the applicants' claims?
3. Did the Board err in its failure to assess whether the applicants' various experiences amounted to persecution when considered cumulatively?
II. Analysis
[4] I can overturn the Board's decision only if I find that it was patently unreasonable, in the sense that it was completely unsupported by the evidence.
1. Did the Board err when it found that the applicants' evidence was not credible?
[5] The Board found that certain aspects of Ms. Malja's account of events were implausible. It also determined that there were serious omissions in some of her earlier statements, and drew adverse inferences from them.
[6] Ms. Malja claimed that her husband, a Democratic Party supporter, was employed in the finance department of Albania's secret service. In 1998, he reported to his superiors that funds were being misappropriated. He got no response from them, but the family began to be threatened and harassed. In the autumn of 2000, he accused the governing socialists of manipulating local elections. At that point, he was fired.
[7] The Board wondered why Mr. Malja was not fired immediately after he complained about financial irregularities in 1998. After all, he was a Democratic Party supporter, and many supporters had been fired anyway in 1997 when the Socialist Party came to power. Further, the Board did not understand why Mr. Malja would not disclose his information about corruption to the Democratic Party who could probably use it to advantage.
[8] Ms. Malja attempted to address the Board's concerns. She said that not all Democratic Party supporters were fired when the Socialists came to power. Her husband was good at his job and was kept on. In any case, his political profile was not high. She did not purport to understand the Socialist Party's reasoning. Her husband did not reveal his information to the Democratic Party because he thought he should proceed through regular channels.
[9] The Board considered this evidence and determined that Ms. Malja's account of events was implausible. It did not believe that her husband had exposed corruption at all.
[10] In respect of Ms. Malja's credibility, the Board was concerned that she had omitted to mention the problems that the family was having when she was interviewed for purposes of a permanent resident application to Canada. Nor did she mention many of them on her arrival in Canada. In particular, she did not describe the threats and harassment that followed her husband's actions. Further, when she arrived in Canada in December 2000, she did not mention the bombing of her home that had allegedly taken place just two months earlier.
[11] Ms. Malja explained that she did not see the need to mention the family's problems when she was interviewed for permanent residence. When she arrived in Canada, she was tired and under stress. The Board was somewhat sympathetic, but did not accept her explanations for the omissions in her statements. In particular, it determined that the bombing incident did not take place.
[12] The Board is entitled to make findings of fact and its conclusions are subject to considerable judicial deference. It is also entitled to find that a claimant's story is implausible, but the Court is often in an equally good position to assess the plausibility of the version of events put before the Board. Divsalar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. 875 (T.D.) (QL), Valtchev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1131 (T.D.) (QL).
[13] In this case, looking at the evidence as a whole, I cannot conclude that the Board erred when it found grounds for doubting the veracity of the applicants' account of events. Its findings were not patently unreasonable.
2. Did the Board err when it discounted the value of a newspaper article submitted in support of the applicants' claims?
[14] The applicants presented to the Board a newspaper article that described the family's difficulties. The Board discounted the value of this piece of evidence because, according to documentary sources, it is possible for almost anything to get published in many Albanian journals.
[15] I cannot find any error on the Board's part in respect of the newspaper article. It was entitled to give it whatever weight it felt it deserved.
3. Did the Board err in its failure to assess whether the applicants' various experiences amounted to persecution when considered cumulatively?
[16] Ms. Malja argues that the Board should have considered whether the family's cumulative experiences amounted to persecution, even though individual events might not have been sufficient.
[17] In my view, in light of the Board's other findings, it was not obliged to analyze the cumulative impact of the applicants' various allegations. In effect, the Board found that those allegations were simply not proved. Accordingly, it had no duty to consider whether they amounted to persecution.
[18] I cannot conclude that the Board's decision was patently unreasonable and, therefore, must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S ORDER IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
F.C.J.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5136-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MALJA ET AL v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO
DATE OF HEARING: Tuesday, July 20, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: Thursday, July 22, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Ms. Elizabeth Jaszi FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. Marcel Larouche FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ELIZABETH JASZI
Barrister and Solicitor
Mississauga, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS
MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content