Karaceper v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-1389-97

Date: 19971212

Docket: IMM-1389-97

BETWEEN:

     CENGIZ KARACEPER, CANER KARACEPER and

     FIGEN KARACEPER

     Applicants

     - and -

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

MCGILLIS, J.

[1]      Despite the able argument of counsel for the applicants, I have concluded that the adverse findings of credibility made by the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") in relation to the male applicant's evidence on the central aspect of the claim were reasonably open to it. Although the decision is brief and poorly written, the Board has nevertheless provided cogent examples to support its conclusion that the evidence of the male applicant was not credible. Given its negative credibility findings on the crucial questions of his involvement in Kawa, his knowledge of the organization and his activities in organizing the protests, the Board was not required to consider any other aspects of the refugee claim. [See Mahendran v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 14 Imm. L.R. (2d) 30 (F.C.A.)]

[2]      Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Board erred in failing to consider separately the refugee claim of the female applicant. I cannot accept that argument. The female applicant's Personal Information Form was very general in nature, and indicated that she suffered as a result of the persecution faced by the male applicant. She also indicated in her Personal Information Form that she experienced fears due to her Kurdish identity and her Alevi religion, and that she would be able to give more details at her hearing. A review of the transcript reveals that the female applicant testified only briefly at the hearing, and in very vague and general terms. In particular, she made no reference to any persecution that she would be likely to face in Turkey on the grounds of race or religion. During his submissions at the conclusion of the hearing before the Board, counsel for the applicants made no reference whatsoever to the female applicant. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the female applicant based her claim to refugee status on the male applicant's claim. The Board therefore properly rejected her claim on the basis that the male applicant had failed to establish that he had a well founded fear of persecution in Turkey.

[3]      The application for judicial review is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.