Date: 20020528
Docket: IMM-2352-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 607
Ottawa, Ontario, the 28th day of May, 2002
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHEL BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
ALLA GOUSSEVA AND VLADISLAV GOUSSEV
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [hereinafter "the panel"] dated April 25, 2001, determining that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
ISSUE
[2] Is the decision being challenged patently unreasonable?
FACTS
[3] The applicant, Alla Gousseva, 66, and her epileptic son, Vladislav Goussev, 39, are both citizens of Russia.
[4] Ms. Gousseva alleged that in 1968, she was denied the right to travel to
Czechoslovakia with her son in order that he be treated for epilepsy.
[5] In 1991, Ms. Gousseva's daughter emigrated to Canada and had her mother and brother visit her several times.
[6] In 1998, Ms. Gousseva contacted Epilepsy Canada, an organization that raises funds for research to fight epilepsy. When she returned to Russia, she set up a non-profit organization to promote the rights of disabled children.
[7] At city hall, she sought but was denied the right to receive grants and conduct fundraising campaigns.
[8] On June 14, 1999, the group organized a protest demonstration in front of city hall and it was dispersed.
[9] Ms. Gousseva met with her elected member but to no avail.
[10] She alleges that the following day, four men entered her home, roughed her up and struck her son. During that incident, she was told to put an end to her public activities.
[11] According to Ms. Gousseva, on September 3, 1999, her former husband, host of a current affairs television program, tried to set up a meeting with the mayor and make a brief report on the organization in question but, unfortunately, that failed to take place.
[12] On the following day, Ms. Gousseva began receiving anonymous telephone calls threatening her. Two days later, three men dressed as health professionals came to her home to take her son away. She gave one of them $100 U.S. and was warned that the next time, things might not work like that. She therefore argues that at that point, she and her son were in danger.
[13] On January 21, 2000, the two of them left their country and came to Canada where they claimed refugee status, stating that they had a well-founded fear of persecution based, in regard to Alla Gousseva, on political opinion and membership in a particular social group, and, in regard to her son, on membership in a particular social group.
[14] Vladislav Goussev was represented by his mother at the hearing before the panel.
APPLICANTS' SUBMISSIONS
[15] The applicants submit that it is clear on the face of the reasons for the panel's decision that everything was done to try to discredit Ms. Gousseva by focussing on microscopic details of her testimony concerning her meeting with her elected member.
[16] The applicants criticize the panel for failing to consider Dr. W. Brzezinski's medical report dated January 29, 2001, regarding Ms. Gousseva's state of anxiety and depression, which constituted important and objective evidence that could have made it possible to corroborate the allegations of persecution in Russia made by her.
[17] The applicants add that the panel's decision failed to make any reference to the report entitled Asylum in the UK - Russia Assessment, April 2000 - Country Information and Policy Unit, concerning the situation of persons considered disabled in Russia, or to the 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State, dated February 25, 2000. These documents were filed as evidence at the hearing.
RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS
[18] The respondent contends that the issue here is one of facts and credibility, and unless there is evidence that the conclusion was unreasonable or arbitrary, this Court should not intervene.
[19] The respondent argues that the panel is in the best position to assess the facts, particularly when it is a question of gauging the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence adduced. It also falls on the panel to assess the probative value and draw the necessary conclusions.
ANALYSIS
[20] This Court has stated repeatedly that it should not intervene when the panel makes a finding that there is a lack of credibility resulting from discrepancies and inconsistencies in the refugee claimant's testimony. The assessment of testimony is at the very heart of the Refugee Division's field of expertise. See Giron v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] F.C.J. No. 481 (C.A.), (in French: Giron c. Canada (Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration), (May 28, 1992), A-387-89 (C.A.); Ye v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] F.C.J. No. 584 (C.A.); Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 732 (C.A.), at para. 3; He v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1107 (C.A.), at para. 2, (in French: He c. Canada (Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration), (July 20, 1994), A-1194-91 (C.A.).
[21] In this case, the applicants have failed to satisfy me that the panel erred in law or based its decision on erroneous findings of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. See, for example, Sandhu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 266 (T.D.), paras. 8-9, (in French: Sandhu c. Canada (Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration), ( March 3, 1994), 93-T-46 (T.D.).
[22] Unfortunately, I do not share the opinion of the applicants that the panel focussed on microscopic details of the testimony given by Ms. Gousseva in order to discredit her.
[23] With respect to the medical report written by Dr. W. Brzezinski, it should be noted that it consists of only two paragraphs, which read as follows:
Westmount, January 29, 2001
RE: GOUSSEVA, Alla (date of birth 1935/01/19)
To whom it may concern:
This is to inform you that I know the above-named patient since March 2000. Mrs. Gousseva has a 28 year history of hypertension with a history of depression following the birth of her son, who is severely handicapped.
Her blood pressure is very difficult to control due to her general anxiety. Anti-anxiety medication has commenced.
Sincerely,
W. Brzezinski, M.D.
[24] I fail to see how that letter by Dr. Brzezinski corroborates the allegations of persecution made by Ms. Gousseva given that it is general in nature and merely refers to a general state of anxiety and depression. In my view, it cannot be concluded from this that Ms. Gousseva bore physical marks or psychological symptoms consistent with her description of the violence and persecution she purportedly suffered in Russia.
[25] On the face of the transcript of the panel's decision, I notice that several questions were raised and the purpose was plainly to clarify some matters and give Ms. Gousseva an opportunity to explain the numerous inconsistencies found in her testimony and Personal Information Form.
[26] In its decision, the panel recognized that Ms. Gousseva might have made some errors as a result of her nervousness, but more important is the fact that despite that nervousness, the panel did not believe her.
[27] In my opinion, the panel's findings meet the requirements laid down in Hilo v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.) (in French: Hilo c. Canada (Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration), (March 15, 1991), A-260-90 (F.C.A.)) and Armson v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 9 Imm. L.R. (2d) 150 (F.C.A.)) (in French: Armson c. Canada (Ministre de l'Emploi et l'Immigration),
(September 5, 1989), A-313-88 (F.C.A.)) by clearly identifying the elements in Ms. Gousseva's testimony that were inconsistent. However, contrary to Rahnema v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1993] F.C.J. No 1431 (T.D.) (in French: Rahnema c. Canada (Solliciteur général du Canada), (October 15, 1993), IMM-1740-93 (T.D.), which was cited by the applicants, I am not persuaded that by finding deficiencies or shortcomings in the evidence, the panel was so zealous that it might have erred in fact or in law making it necessary for this Court to intervene.
[28] An analysis of the transcript satisfied me that the panel's statement regarding Ms. Gousseva's meeting with her elected member was reasonable. The same applies to the comments made concerning the persons who allegedly showed up at Ms. Gousseva's home.
[29] As for the absence, in the decision, of a reference to the documentation filed by Ms. Gousseva, I am of the opinion that the panel is not required to comment on all of the documents that were filed, particularly when credibility is the issue, as it is in this case. The panel reached the conclusion that the applicants had failed to establish a subjective fear of persecution and was therefore not required to address the allegation of objective persecution made by the applicants.
[30] No certified question was submitted to me.
[31] Therefore, it is not my intention to intervene in this case and accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
Certified true translation
S. Debbané, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2352-01
STYLE OF CAUSE:
ALLA GOUSSEVA,
VLADISLAV GOUSSEV
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 9, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER: BEAUDRY J.
DATE OF REASONS: May 28, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Kathleen Gaudreau FOR THE APPLICANTS
Sylviane Roy FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kathleen Gaudreau FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content