IMM-2444-96
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 11th DAY OF
APRIL 1997
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE
YVON PINARD
BETWEEN:
MYOUDA
BOGOSLAVSKY,
Applicant,
-
and -
MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
O
R D E R
The application
for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division dated July 3, 1996,
determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
Judge
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
IMM-2444-96
BETWEEN:
MYOUDA
BOGOSLAVSKY,
Applicant,
-
and -
MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS
FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
This is an application for
judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division dated July 3, 1996,
determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee. The applicant
asserts that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in Israel because of
her nationality, race, religion and membership in a particular social group.
The Refugee Division doubted
the applicant's assertion that she had been treated as a non-Jew because of her
sons' Asiatic appearance. On this point, the Board stated:
[translation]
Jews of all colours and all physical appearances
immigrate to Israel on a daily basis, relying on their mothers' Jewish
nationality. We do not see how Israeli Jews, even immigrants or sons of
immigrants, could be unaware of the biological diversity of the Jewish people
and assert some racial norm to exclude a Jewish mother and her children from
Jewish nationality. Ms. Bogoslavsky may have had difficulties with hooligans
in Israel after she returned from Canada; these difficulties are not
attributable to one of the grounds in the Convention but to the lack of respect
among youth for older people.
It
also appears that the Refugee Division did not believe the applicant's claims
in respect of her fear of [translation]
"returning to a country where she had suffered so much in the past",
since she had returned to Israel of her own accord in July 1993.
On
the question of the protection afforded by the State of Israel, the Board held
that the allegations that protection was not afforded to nationals of the
former U.S.S.R. facing harassment from orthodox Jews were not reflected in the
international press specializing in human rights monitoring. On this point,
the Board referred to the documentation indicating that Israel is a democratic
country which is very open to new immigrants from the former Soviet Union and
concluded that the applicant had not discharged the burden of proving that the
State of Israel was not able to protect her:
[translation]
Since the claimant was unable in her reply to undermine
the integrity and truth of the documentary evidence filed, we are of the opinion
that her initial testimony is exaggerated and accordingly is not very
trustworthy. It is not impossible that religious extremists might bother new
arrivals, but it has not been proved to the satisfaction of the Board that the
Israeli authorities failed in their task of protecting them.
The
applicant has not succeeded in satisfying me that the Refugee Division
committed such an error as to allow this Court to intervene. More
specifically, having regard to all of the evidence in the record, I am of the
opinion that the applicant has not discharged her burden of showing that the
inferences drawn by this specialized tribunal could not reasonably have been
drawn (see Aguebor).
Lastly,
since the decision in Ward v. Canada (M.E.I.), it is
also settled that a refugee claimant must show, at the hearing, by clear and
convincing proof, that the State of which he or she is a national is unable to
protect him or her. Moreover, need it be pointed out that "Absent some
evidence, the claim should fail, as nations should be presumed capable of
protecting their citizens"?
Since the applicant did not show at the hearing that there had been a complete
collapse of the Israeli State, the presumption that the State is capable of
protecting its citizens applies and the applicant had to show that it was
objectively unreasonable to seek the protection of the Israeli authorities. In
my view, after reviewing the transcript of the hearing and the applicant's PIF,
it was entirely open to the Refugee Division to determine that the applicant
had not discharged the burden placed on her by Ward of showing that the
Israeli authorities were not capable of protecting her.
Accordingly,
the application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel for the parties did
not submit any question for certification.
O T T A
W A
April
11, 1997
Judge
Certified
true translation
C.
Delon, LL.L.
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL
DIVISION
NAMES
OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT
FILE NO: IMM-2444-96
STYLE
OF CAUSE: MYOUDA BOGOSLAVSKY v. MCI
PLACE
OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF
HEARING: APRIL 10, 1997
REASONS
FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: APRIL
11, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Jacques
Beauchemin FOR THE
APPLICANT
Pasquale-Catherine
Guay FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Jacques
Beauchemin FOR THE
APPLICANT
George
Thomson FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content