Mejia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 458

Date: 20040326

Docket: IMM-653-03

Citation: 2004 FC 458

Ottawa, Ontario, this 26^th day of March, 2004

Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY                         

BETWEEN:

                                          MARIA CONSUELO MARTINEZ MEJIA

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]                Ms. Maria Consuelo Martinez Mejia claims that she would be at risk of abduction by urban guerrillas if she were returned to her native Colombia. Sadly, both her husband and her son, separately, were kidnapped by unknown persons in 1986 and 1994 respectively. On both occasions, when her family failed to pay a ransom, the abductors killed their captive.

[2]                Ms. Mejia failed in her claim for refugee status here, but subsequently asked for a pre-removal risk assessment. The officer who carried out that assessment concluded that Ms. Mejia would be at no greater risk than any other resident of Colombia. Ms. Mejia argues that the officer failed to appreciate that she was likely to be targeted by guerrillas on her return. She asks me to order a re-assessment of her risk by another officer.

[3]                With regret, I can find no basis for overturning the officer's decision. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. As conceded by counsel for the Minister, Ms. Mejia's circumstances may well merit humanitarian and compassionate consideration, but that is not the issue before me.

I. Issue

[4]                There is a single issue in this case: Did the risk assessment officer fail to consider evidence that Ms. Mejia was at greater risk of abduction than other Colombian residents?

II. Analysis

[5]                Ms. Mejia's husband was a police officer. It is possible, as Ms. Mejia claims, that whoever abducted him had singled him out because of his profession. Ms. Mejia argues that her son may have been targeted because he was a relative of a police officer. While the eight-year gap between the two abductions might suggest that the two events were unrelated, she argues the contrary - that the long time period between two crimes shows the persistence of guerrillas in eliminating their enemies. By extension, she argues, the guerrillas may well come after her if she returns to Colombia. She suggests that the risk assessment officer failed to consider this possibility, even in the face of documentary evidence referring to the policy of guerrillas to kill, attack and threaten off-duty police officers and their relatives. Her husband was off-duty when he was kidnapped.

[6]                However, as the respondent points out, there is no evidence whatsoever that the abduction of Ms. Mejia's husband and son were at all related. In both cases, the perpetrators were unknown. It was reasonable for the risk assessment officer to conclude, as the panel considering her refugee claim had done, that it was very unlikely that Ms. Mejia would be targeted by guerrillas if she returned home. The documentary evidence supporting Ms. Mejia's contention was scant. The officer's failure to mention it does not detract from his analysis of Ms. Mejia's circumstances. Further, it is noteworthy that Ms. Mejia's other children, who continue to reside in Colombia, have not experienced any difficulties.

[7]                Therefore, I 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 JUDGMENT 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

                                                      SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-653-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          MARIA CONSUELO MARTINEZ MEJIA v.

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                      March 2, 2004

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AND JUDGMENT BY :                 The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly

DATED:                                             March 26, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Mr. D. Clifford Luyt                             FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Michael Butterfield                        FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

WALDMAN & ASSOCIATES          FOR THE APPLICANT

Toronto, Ontario

MORRIS ROSENBERG                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Toronto Ontario