Vargas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1019

Date: 20021002

Docket: IMM-4836-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1019

Between:

ISABEL VARGAS

Plaintiff

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Defendant

REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.

[1]        The application for judicial review is from a decision by the Refugee Division on September 26, 2001, that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee, as defined in s. 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 ("the Act").

[2]        The plaintiff is a citizen of Guatemala and alleges she was persecuted in that country on account of her membership in a particular social group. The Refugee Division refused to grant her refugee status, concluding that she was a victim of criminal acts, not of persecution within the meaning of the Convention.

[3]        It is well settled that according to the definition of a "Convention refugee" in s. 2(1) of the Act, a person claiming refugee status must show that he or she has "a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion" (Chan v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593).

[4]        In Ward v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at 745, the Supreme Court of Canada established that the alleged fear must necessarily be connected with one of the grounds in the Convention:

Moreover, I do not accept that Ward's fear was based on his membership. Rather, in my view, Ward was the target of a highly individualized form of persecution and does not fear persecution because of his group characteristics. Ward feels threatened because of what he did as an individual, and not specifically because of his association. His membership in the INLA placed him in the circumstances that led to his fear, but the fear itself was based on his action, not on his affiliation.

[5]        In the case at bar the Refugee Division was not persuaded that the plaintiff fell within the limits of the definition of a Convention refugee. It dismissed the argument that the plaintiff belonged to a particular social group which the latter defined in her arguments, at para. 2, as being [TRANSLATION] "one social group in particular, namely that of elderly women, without any support from a husband or son". Relying on documentary evidence in the record, the Refugee Division said the following at p. 2 of its decision:

[TRANSLATION]

The question was whether the claimant was likely to have problems because of her membership in a particular social group. In this respect, the death of the friend Ofelia and the uncle Luis indicated that single individuals were at risk and likely to be victims of malefactors. However, there is no basis for concluding that these people were members of a social group within the meaning of the definition, since clearly these persons were at risk not because they belonged to a group but because they were easy targets for criminals.

[6]        After reviewing the transcript, considering the parties' arguments and re-reading the decision, I am persuaded that the Refugee Division reasonably concluded that the plaintiff's story, though genuine and credible, did not disclose any connection with a ground listed in the definition of a Convention refugee. It is well settled that victims of crime or personal vengeance, such as the plaintiff, are not a social group within the meaning of the Convention (Calero v. M.E.I., August 8, 1994, IMM-3396-93, F.C.T.D. (persons victims of organized crime), Karpounin v. M.E.I., March 10, 1995, IMM-7368-93, F.C.T.D. (victims of extortion tactics in the Ukraine), Wilcox v. M.E.I., November 2, 1993, A-1282-92, F.C.T.D. (fear of extortion tactics in Peru), Marincas v. M.E.I., [1994] F.C.J. No. 1254, T.D. (QL), and Perrier v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 54, T.D. (QL)).

[7]        For these reasons, I consider that the Refugee Division carried out its function without making any reviewable error.

[8]        The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

October 2, 2002

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.

                                                       FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                    TRIAL DIVISION

                                NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

FILE:                                                                                  IMM-4836-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                         ISABEL VARGAS v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                   Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                                     August 28, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                       Pinard J.

DATED:                                                                             October 2, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Odette Desjardins                                                              FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Barbara Boily                                                                     FOR THE DEFENDANT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Odette Desjardins                                                              FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg                                                              FOR THE DEFENDANT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

Date: 20021002

Docket: IMM-4836-01

Ottawa, Ontario, October 2, 2002

Before: Pinard J.

Between:

ISABEL VARGAS

Plaintiff

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Defendant

ORDER

The application for judicial review from the decision by the Refugee Division on September 26, 2001, that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee is dismissed.

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.