Date: 20100222
Docket: IMM‑4503‑09
Citation: 2010 FC 191
Montréal, Quebec, February 22, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice
Beaudry
BETWEEN:
PAVEL ANFALOV
VALENTINA
CHEPURKO
Applicants
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an application for judicial review,
under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee
Board’s Refugee Protection Division (the panel) dated August 5, 2009, determining
that the respondents are not Convention refugees.
[2]
The applicants are of
Ukrainian origin and citizens of Israel. The male applicant is Jewish and the female applicant is
Christian. In May 1997, they left Ukraine and immigrated to Israel with
their family.
[3]
They claimed refugee
protection in Canada on April 24, 2009. They fear that if they
are sent back, they will be persecuted and arrested because they may be
considered accomplices of a Palestinian terrorist.
[4]
Their claim for protection
was rejected on the basis that they lacked credibility.
Furthermore, the panel concluded that they had
neglected to exhaust their courses of action in Israel before claiming refugee
protection in Canada.
[5]
The application for judicial review will be
dismissed for the reasons that follow.
[6]
Since Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1
S.C.R. 190; Uppal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 445, [2009] F.C.J. No. 557 (QL), the standard of
review for similar issues is reasonableness. Consequently, the Court will only
intervene if the decision does not fall within “a range of possible, acceptable
outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir,
above, at paragraph 47).
[7]
Although the panel did not note any
inconsistencies between the personal information form and the testimonies
given, the reasons clearly describe the implausibilities identified. The panel
drew a negative inference from the fact that the male applicant was unable to
answer certain questions regarding threats from police to lay charges against
him because he had allegedly refused to be an informer.
[8]
The panel found that the male applicant was not
credible on the matter of his relationship with a certain person named Hussein.
The friendship with that person was central to the applicants’ claim. That
finding belongs to the jurisdiction of the panel, and the Court cannot
intervene unless the finding is incomprehensible or unsupported by the
evidence. That is not the case here.
[9]
The panel is in the best position to assess the
explanations provided with respect to the perceived implausibilities (Gutierrez
v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC
487, paragraph 14, [2009] F.C.J. No. 617 (QL)).
[10]
In her application, the female applicant related
three incidents: having been subjected to critical remarks for the cross she
wore around her neck, having been forced to work Saturdays and having lost her
job. Although those situations were unpleasant, it was reasonable for the panel
to conclude that this evidence was insufficient to establish that those
incidents amounted to persecution, even taking the series of them into account.
[11]
The panel also noted that the applicants never
approached the state of Israel
for protection. That conclusion is supported by the evidence.
[12]
Taking the circumstances into account, the Court
considers that its intervention is not appropriate.
[13]
No question was proposed for certification, and
the record contains none.
JUGEMENT
THE COURT ORDERS that the application
for judicial review be dismissed. No question is certified.
“Michel Beaudry”
Certified true
translation
Sarah Burns
Email this Content