Date: 20000420
Docket: IMM-2725-99
Between:
Lidia MAKHMOUD
Ekaterina MAKHMOUD
Bassam Tarek MAKHMOUD
Giam MAKHMOUD
Applicants
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] The applicants, Lidia Makhmoud and her three children, seek judicial review of a decision dated May 6, 1999, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, determining that they were not Convention refugees.
[2] The applicants'submissions are essentially directed to the panel's assessment of the facts which led to its conclusions that they are not stateless, but citizens of Russia, and that they failed to establish a reasonable chance of persecution in that country. I have thoroughly reviewed the evidence, and although there are some insignificant numbering errors, I am not satisfied that the panel based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.
[3] In particular, with respect to the applicants' fundamental fear of being unable to obtain a propiska (residence permit), the documentary evidence, especially Exhibit B-8 (incorrectly marked A-21),1 indicates that although a propiska cannot be obtained in some areas of Russia, it can be obtained in others. Moreover, as in Igumnov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 89 F.T.R. 62, the evidence does not suggest that the propiska system is inherently persecutory. In that case, Rouleau J. stated at page 65:
| With respect to the issue of whether the "propiska" system amounts to persecution and can support a finding of a "well-founded fear of persecution", the Board came to the following conclusion: |
| "With respect to the first witness evidence of bad treatment of re-patriots by locals, and noting that his evidence is with respect to large cities only, the panel is not prepared to determine on the basis of this evidence alone that, wherever he attempts to settle in Russia, the claimant or others similarly situate would be discriminated against to the point where such discrimination would amount to persecution. Nor, on the evidence before us, do we find such discrimination as has been described to amount to persecution and, therefore, we find no well-founded fear of persecution." |
| The Board did not err in deciding as it did. Even though the applicant may suffer harassment as a "resettler", it does not amount to persecution as defined in the jurisprudence. |
[4] Accordingly, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 20, 2000
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LL.B
Date: 20000420
Docket: IMM-2725-99
Ottawa, Ontario, the 20th day of April 2000
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
Lidia MAKHMOUD
Ekaterian MAKHMOUD
Bassam Tarek MAKHMOUD
Giam MAKHMOUD
Applicants
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision dated May 6, 1999, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, determining that the applicants were not Convention refugees, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LL.B
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-2725-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: LIDIA MAKHMOUD et al.
v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 22, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: APRIL 20, 2000
APPEARANCES:
EVELINE FISET FOR THE APPLICANTS
MARIE-CLAUDE DEMERS FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
EVELINE FISET FOR THE APPLICANTS
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________
1 Panel's record at page 896, Exhibit A-21.
Email this Content