Date: 20021114
Docket: IMM-38-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1183
Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, the 14th day of November, 2002
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
BAHADIR BUYUK
MERAL BUYUK
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "CRDD"), dated November 26, 2001, wherein the CRDD determined that the Applicants are not Convention Refugees.
[2] The Applicants are married and are citizens of Turkey. They claim a well-founded fear of persecution based on two grounds, they feared ultra-nationalists who did not want to see the Applicants succeed because of their ethnic origin as Alevi Kurds, and fear the Turkish authorities who will know they submitted a claim for refugee status in Canada.
[3] The Applicants claim to have been subjected to past persecution on the basis of their ethnicity and religion. The male Applicant claims to have been beaten and detained by police numerous times, and beaten by ultra-nationalists as well. The female Applicant claims to have been arrested from her home, and fired from jobs on the basis of her ethnic background. The incidents at issue took place between 1986 and 1993, and the central issue in the claim occurred in March 2000.
[4] The male Applicant says that, in March 2000, he was assaulted and beaten in the street by ultra-nationalists who opposed a tender submitted by the Applicant's engineering company for a major project; he submitted that he was attacked because the aggressors did not want an Alevi Kurd to win the contract, and they told him to withdraw the offer made by his firm. The female applicant states that she also received threatening telephone calls in relation to the tender. After this incident, the Applicants decided to leave Turkey and seek refugee protection in Canada.
[5] During the hearings, the CRDD advised the Applicants that it was most interested in hearing about the events of March 2000. It directed counsel for the Applicants to focus her questions on the specific "culminating" incident, as opposed to the incidents of past persecution.
[6] In addition, counsel for the Applicants was given a specific direction in relation to her closing argument:
Presiding member: The panel would like to hear submissions from you, Ms. Bruce, on the claims, and if it's of any assistance, we would like to hear your submissions focused on a couple of issues.
To begin with, is there sufficient-is it credible that the incidents of March 2000 actually occurred; that is to say, both Mr. Buyuk and his wife were threatened and he suffered serious harm as a result of a bid for a construction project that his company tendered.
And then having particular regard to the profile of these two claimants, is there sufficient, credible evidence before the panel that persons like them have good grounds for fearing persecution in Turkey on the basis of their ethnicity and religion, or on the basis of any other Convention ground that might be relevant to their claims?
(Transcript, p. 293).
[7] However, in its reasons, the CRDD states that:
I am not satisfied that these claimants were or believed themselves to be persecuted in the past given their failure to leave Turkey following any of the early incidents of alleged serious harassment by authorities. The fact that they did not leave earlier and the fact that the reason given was that Mr. Buyuk wanted to complete his education suggest that he might be exaggerating the harshness of this past treatment. [Emphasis added]
[8] In my opinion, a manifest unfairness occurred in the present case by the CRDD limiting the Applicants' production of evidence and argument on past persecution and then making a finding against them on this very same point. Therefore, I find that the decision was reached in reviewable error.
ORDER
Accordingly, the CRDD's decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.
"Douglas R. Campbell"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Names of counsel and solicitors of record
DOCKET: IMM-38-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: BAHADIR BUYUK
MERAL BUYUK
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: CAMPBELL J.
DATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2002
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Lorne Waldman
For the Applicants
Mr. Tamrat Gebeyehu
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Waldman & Associates
281 Eglinton Ave. East
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1L3
For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20021114
Docket: IMM-38-02
BETWEEN:
BAHADIR BUYUK
MERAL BUYUK
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER
Email this Content