Date: 20000201
Docket: IMM-1805-99
BETWEEN:
ANA DIGNA RAMIREZ LEVANO,
Plaintiff,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review from a decision by the Refugee Division (RD) on March 18, 1999 that the plaintiff, a citizen of Peru, is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The plaintiff alleged a valid fear of persecution for her political opinions.
[3] The plaintiff reported she was a witness to a criminal offence committed by alleged terrorists on May 19, 1995 in the Miraflores district, where she was working. She said she contacted the police, who succeeded in arresting five individuals. In these arrests, two alleged terrorists and three employees were wounded.
[4] On June 9, 1995 the plaintiff alleged she was summoned to the police station to file her statement about the incident. Thanks to her help, the police were able to arrest a ring of terrorists operating in a particular area.
[5] She alleged that she subsequently received two threatening calls at her work. As she felt sure she would be putting her life at risk if she went to the court house to testify against the alleged terrorists, she asked the police to provide her with protection. They said they could protect her at her workplace but not at home. She then decided to leave Peru.
[6] Despite the fact that she obtained a visitor"s visa for Canada on July 25, 1995, the plaintiff alleged she waited for the right time to leave the country as she did not wish to compromise her family"s peace and safety. She left Peru on September 10, 1995 to escape the threats against her life made by the terrorists.
[7] Essentially, the RD did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee because her testimony was not credible and there was no connection between her fear of persecution and any of the reasons in the Convention.
[8] It is clear from the precedents that fear of persecution for giving information against criminals is not a political opinion within the meaning of the Convention.1 The RD properly concluded that there was no connection between her fear of persecution and any of the grounds in the Convention.
[9] On the question of the plaintiff"s delay in leaving her country, which affected her credibility, decisions of this Court have several times recognized that this is a relevant factor which the RD could take into account. It was accordingly open to the RD to conclude that her conduct was inconsistent with that of a person fearing persecution.
[10] There is accordingly no ground to justify this Court"s intervention.
[11] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
| |
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
JUDGE
|
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
February 1, 2000
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
|
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Date: 20000201
Docket: IMM-1805-99
Between:
ANA DIGNA RAMIREZ LEVANO,
Plaintiff,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ANA DIGNA RAMIREZ LEVANO, |
Plaintiff,
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, |
Defendant.
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: February 1, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: TREMBLAY-LAMER J. |
APPEARANCES:
| Nathalie Leblanc for the plaintiff |
| Michel Pépin for the defendant |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| SABINE, VENTURELLI for the plaintiff |
Montréal, Quebec
| MORRIS ROSENBERG for the defendant |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________
1 Munoz v. Canada (M.C.I.), February 22, 1996, IMM-1884-95, F.C.T.D.; Suarez v. Canada (M.C.I.), July 29, 1996, IMM-3246-95, F.C.T.D.
Email this Content