Date: 20040705
Docket: IMM-2695-03
Citation: 2004 FC 958
Edmonton, Alberta, this 5th day of July 2004
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
ABDULGAFUR KARAGUDUK
VILDAN KARAGUDUK
YASIN KARAGUDUK
FATMA KARAGUDUK
RUKIYE KARAGUDUK
AYSE KARAGUDUK
FURKAN KARAGUDUK
Applicants
and
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Abdulgafur Karaguduk, Mrs.Vildan Karaguduk, Yasin Karaguduk, Fatma Karaguduk, Rukiye Karaguduk, Ayse Karaguduk and Furkan Karaguduk (the "Applicants") seek judicial review of the decision of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer (the "PRRA officer"). In that decision, dated January 20, 2003, the PRRA officer refused the application of the Applicants to be found persons in need of protection.
[2] The Applicants are citizens of Turkey. Mr. Abdulgafur Karaguduk (the "Principal Applicant") is the husband of Vildan Karaguduk. The Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA") pursuant to the Immigration Refugee and Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended (the "Act") was sought on behalf of the Principal Applicant and his wife, their sons Yasin, Furkan, and their daughters Fatma, Rukiye and Ayse.
[3] The Applicants base their PRRA application on a general claim of persecution in Turkey on grounds of their religious practice and beliefs arising from their membership of Fethullah Gulen. As well, Yasin Karaguduk claimed to be a conscientious objector who received call-up notices, warning him of imprisonment if he failed to join the armed forces. Finally, the Principal Applicant's wife and daughters, who wear headscarfs in conformity with their religious beliefs, claim that this practice exposes them to risk of persecution. Further, the Principal Applicant alleges that his daughters will be denied access to education in consequence of the headscarf ban in Turkey.
[4] The PRRA officer considered these issues and concluded that there is not a reasonable possibility that the Applicants will be persecuted as a consequence of their adherence to the teachings and organization of the Fethullah Gulen. He characterized that organization as holding moderate views that were supportive of the secular state in Turkey.
[5] The PRRA officer noted that while military service was required of all male citizens in Turkey, alternatives were available. He considered the severity of the penalties for draft evasion and noted that since this son had attained the age of twenty years in January 2003, the evidence shows that he has been unlawfully absent for the preliminary service required of conscripts. Nonetheless, he concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that the adult son would be at risk of persecution, cruel or unusual punishment or torture.
[6] Finally, the PRRA officer found that although the Principal Applicant's daughter experienced discrimination as a result of wearing headscarfs, this discrimination did not amount to persecution. Accordingly, the PRRA officer dismissed the Applicant's application.
[7] The PRRA officer reviewed the material submitted by the Applicants, including documentary evidence concerning the three issues referred to above and the prevailing circumstances in Turkey. On the basis of the material submitted, he concluded the Applicants had not shown that they were at risk of persecution or cruel and unusual treatment in Turkey.
[8] The decision of a PRRA officer is essentially based upon the evidence before him or her, and the weighing of that evidence is entitled to a high degree of deference. In my opinion, the decision here in question is reasonably supported by the evidence and I see no basis upon which judicial intervention is justified. In the result, 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-2695-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ABDULAFUR KARAGUDUK ET AL.
and
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 1,2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN
DATED: JULY 5, 2004
APPEARANCES:
MS. BRENA PARNES
FOR APPLICANT
MR. JEREMIAH EASTMAN FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
LORNE WALDMAN
BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR
WALDMAN & ASSOCIATES
281 EGLINTON AVENUE EAST
TORONTO, ONTARIO
M4P 1L3
FOR APPLICANT
MORRIS ROSENBERG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
ONTARIO REGIONAL OFFICE
THE EXCHANGE TOWER, 30 KING STREET WEST
SUITE 3400, BOX 36, TORONTO, ONTARIO M5X LK6
FOR RESPONDENT
Email this Content