Date: 20040318
Docket: IMM-364-03
Citation: 2004 FC 394
BETWEEN:
LARISSA ERMOLENKO
ARINA ERMOLENKO
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB), dated December 23, 2002, that the applicants are not Convention refugees or "persons in need of protection" within the meaning of sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Larissa Ermolenko (the applicant) and her minor daughter, Arina, are Russian citizens. The applicant claims to have a well-founded fear because of her nationality and her membership in a particular social group, the family. The applicants also claim to be "persons in need of protection" because they would be subject to a danger of torture, to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
[3] The IRB held that the applicants were not "Convention refugees" or "persons in need of protection" because the applicant's story was not credible.
[4] According to the applicant, there are no clear and explicit reasons given for the panel's finding of lack of credibility. However, the IRB pointed out many reasons for which it determined that the applicant's story was not credible; the applicant's allegation on this point is therefore unfounded. The IRB noted, inter alia, the lack of probative value of the documents in support of the claim, the implausibility of the applicant's allegations, the omissions on her Personal Information Form (PIF) and her conduct, in finding that the alleged fear was not credible. A review of the record and, particularly, the hearing transcripts, shows that the IRB carefully considered the applicant's explanations but that it found they were inadequate.
[5] The applicant argues, furthermore, that the IRB erred in designating her as representative of her minor daughter without her daughter understanding what this entails. However, a review of the hearing transcript indicates that the IRB did follow the prescribed procedure in designating the applicant as the representative of her minor daughter (see the hearing transcript at page 284 of the tribunal record).
[6] The applicant also alleges that the determination made by the IRB about her minor daughter was made without an evaluation of the documentary evidence which establishes that people from Central Asia are victims of discrimination in Russian society. Keep in mind that the IRB is generally assumed to have considered all the evidence in the record (Florea v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (F.C.A.) (QL)) and it is not necessary for it to mention all of it in the reasons for its decision (Hassan v. M.E.I. (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.)). Whatever the case may be, the record indicates that the minor daughter's claim rests entirely on that of her mother.
[7] The applicant finally submits that the IRB did not make any finding regarding the persecution suffered because of her Ukrainian nationality. The applicant clearly indicated in her PIF that she is of Ukrainian nationality. Further, she stated in the notes at the port of entry that she feared persecution because of her nationality and, in the space provided for explanations, she wrote a sentence in Russian. Yet, in response to question 37 of the PIF, the applicant does not mention her Ukrainian nationality at all and she does not connect this to the alleged persecution. According to the caselaw of this Court, all relevant and important facts should be included in a PIF and the testimony should be an opportunity to explain the information contained in it (Basseghi v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1867 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)). Since the applicant did not indicate in her PIF that she feared persecution because of her Ukrainian nationality, her argument is unfounded.
[8] Under the circumstances, the panel's finding to the effect that there was an internal flight alternative is determinative.
[9] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 18, 2004
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-364-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: LARISSA ERMOLENKO, ARINA ERMOLENKO v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 17, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: March 18, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANTS
Jocelyne Murphy FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content