Date: 20000626
Docket: IMM-3342-99
BETWEEN:
JORIK MARJAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED, J.:
[1] This judicial review was scheduled to be heard at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 22.
Counsel for both parties were notified. Counsel for the applicant not having arrived by 9:50
a.m., I indicated to counsel for the respondent that I would make a decision on the basis of
the written submissions that had been filed by both parties.
[2] The decision under review is that of the Convention Refugee Division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board, dated June 15, 1999. The decision found the applicant not to be a convention refugee.
[3] I have reviewed the material on the record, particularly the applicant's PIF, the transcript of the hearing, and of course, the Board's decision, together with counsels' written submissions. I can see no error in the Board's decision.
[4] The applicant states that he left Macedonia after he was ordered to help the police
quell a civilian demonstration in Tetovo. He states that he was a member of a special antiterrorist unit of the army. He states that he was sent to the top of a building in Tetovo, with
four other members of the special army unit. In the transcript he describes what can be called
standing orders under which the army operates, that is "shoot to kill".
[5] The demonstration in Tetovo was quelled as a result of the heavy police presence. The applicant and his four companions were never ordered to shoot at anyone. The applicant and his four companions decided to leave the army; they decided to leave Macedonia. Arrangements were made quickly and they did so, one going to Italy, one to Germany, and
three to Canada.
[6] The Board found the applicant's story lacked credibility. Two of the reasons for this finding, as counsel for the applicant in his written argument claims, appear to be questionable. These are: the applicant's father, as a military man, would not have destroyed some documents relating to the military and then sent others to his son, at his son's request, when asked to do so; there was no evidence that the claimant was wanted by the Macedonian military (e.g., for court martial).
[7] I agree that these are not very convincing reasons for finding that the applicant lacked credibility. One could anticipate that a father's loyalty to his son would outweigh his loyalty
to the military. The call up notices were at least some evidence that the military was looking for the applicant.
[8] At the same time, even if one accepts the applicant's story as credible, the evidence still does not support the conclusion that the applicant is a convention refugee.
[9] As one of the Board members noted, the use of army personnel to assist municipal police in preventing civil demonstrations from becoming violent is a normal role. Also, in this case the applicant and his friends were never asked to take any physical action against the civilian demonstrators. The Board characterized the applicant's position as that of an army deserter. It described the penalties that such a person might face, on return to Macedonia, pursuant to the ordinary law of the land. It did not accept that the applicant would be subject to more severe penalties because he had been a member of a special anti-terrorist unit. It also noted that his military book indicated that he had been a member of the regular army, and
that he had been "released" from service.
[10] I conclude that grounds do not exist that would justify setting aside the decision that is under review.
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 26, 2000
Email this Content