Date: 20040324
Docket: IMM-4876-03
Citation: 2004 FC 450
Toronto, Ontario, March 24th, 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDRE KHODOS
TATIANA JIJINA
IOULIA KHODOS
Applicants
and
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Background
[1] The Applicants Alexandre Khodos ("Khodos"), his wife Tatiana Jijina ("Jijina") and their daughter Ioulia Khodos ("Ioulia"), claimed refugee status from Russia on the grounds of their Jewish background. That claim was rejected by the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("CRDD") on October 5, 2001. Khodos was found not to be a credible witness with respect to this claim.
[2] The Applicants requested a PRRA assessment and claimed that they feared for their life and safely because of their Jewish ethnicity and the fact that they had a successful business.
[3] With regard to the consequences of having a successful business, the Applicants claimed, that they had been subjected to extortionist demands from skinheads (who along with ultranationalists are anti-semitic), that a Jewish business colleague had been murdered for failing to pay extortion demands and other less serious incidents.
[4] Related to both their business status and the lack of state protection, they relied on the pervasive existence of the extortionists and incidents involving Khodos stepson, Artem.
[5] In particular Artem had been confronted by men stating that his family "had not paid yet", that "he walked on Russian soil and breathed Russian air". He had been accosted and beaten by men who made comments such as "where is the money Jew?" and referred to his father and sister being Jewish and who had failed to pay them money.
[6] The Applicants also complained about lack of police protection generally and in particular the failure of police, following the complaint about Artem's beating, to call the Applicants back with a status report.
[7] The PRRA decision of April 2, 2003 found that the Applicants had not provided enough evidence of their Jewish background, that paying extortion money is part of doing business in Russia and not a threat specific to the Applicants; that the various events relied on did not raise more than a mere possibility of risk if the Applicants were returned to Russia.
[8] The PRRA Officer also reviewed police behaviour; that police did respond to complaints and did in fact investigate.
[9] The Applicants' position on this judicial review is that the PRRA Officer erred (a) by not adequately focussing on the risk to the Applicants because of being successful in business. (b) concluding that state protection was adequate in the face of contrary evidence.
Analysis
[10] Section 113(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA") requires a PRRA Officer to consider risk assessments under sections 96-98.
[11] As to the Applicants' Jewish identity and section 96, the Officer was entitled to take into consideration the CRDD finding. This is particularly so where the Applicants adduced no new evidence on this issue.
[12] With respect to the Officer's section 97 analysis, the Applicants complain that the Officer failed to focus on their successful business and restricted his analysis to the risk arising from being Jewish.
[13] While the decision does refer extensively to ethnicity, it was done in the context of an analysis of risk and of state protection. It was the Applicants who relied on their ethnicity/ religion as the basis of the risk that they would face upon return to Russia.
[14] The issue of being Jewish was relied on as part of the mosaic of evidence. Being Jewish and the treatment of Jews in Russia generally was interwoven through every event relied upon by the Applicants. It was the backdrop and common thread through which the evidence of risk arising from being successful business people was alleged to exist.
[15] The Applicants can hardly fault the Officer's analysis when they are the ones who cast events in that light of ethnicity. Having not succeeded on ethnicity, it is convenient to attack the Officer's decision on the basis that insufficient attention was paid to their status as successful business people.
[16] I cannot find that the Officer committed any reviewable error. It is apparent that the Officer was aware of the matters of corruption and extortion in Russia.
[17] The Applicants real challenge is to the weighing of events, factors and circumstances performed by the Officer. There was nothing patently unreasonable about the Officer's analysis.
[18] The Applicants also contend that the Officer ignored evidence in reaching his conclusion that adequate state protection existed.
[19] The evidence said to be ignored was the failure of the police to return a telephone call to the Applicants, the receipt of a threatening telephone call and the events surrounding Artem.
[20] It is a well known principle that the Officer does not have to mention each and every fact examined in reaching a conclusion.
[21] There is significant "country evidence" confirming that, while not perfect, there is adequate state protection. And that it applied to business people as well as the general public. The country reports are a primary source of this objective evidence.
[22] It was reasonably open to the Officer, taking account of all the evidence, to conclude that despite certain events specific to the Applicants, that there was adequate state protection available to them.
[23] The Officer's finding on this point is sparse in terms of analysis. While more written analysis would have been helpful, on the basis of all of the evidence I cannot find that his conclusion was unreasonable.
[24] It was reasonable to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to displace the presumption of state protection.
[25] In the end their application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[26] The Respondent's motion, consented to by the Applicants, to substitute the Solicitor General of Canada as Respondent will be allowed.
[27] No question for certification arises.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The Respondent shall be the Solicitor General of Canada.
2. This application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Michael L. Phelan"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-4876-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ALEXANDRE KHODOS
TATIANA JIJINA
IOULIA KHODOS
Applicants
and
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 16, 2004
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: PHELAN J.
DATED: MARCH 24, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr .Hart A. Kaminker
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. A. Leena Jaakkimainen
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kranc & Associates
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20040324
Docket: IMM-4876-03
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDRE KHODOS
TATIANA JIJINA
IOULIA KHODOS
Applicants
and
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Email this Content