Docket: IMM-634-11
Citation: 2012 FC 388
Ottawa, Ontario, April 2, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
EMIN DURUM
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr.
Emin Durum applied for refugee protection in Canada based on his
fear of persecution in his native Turkey because of his Alevi
religion and Kurdish ethnicity. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board
dismissed Mr. Durum’s claim because it found his evidence inconsistent and
incomplete.
[2]
Mr.
Durum maintains that the Board’s findings were unjustified. He asks me to
overturn the Board’s decision and ask a different panel to reconsider his
claim. However, I can find no grounds for quashing the Board’s decision and
must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
[3]
The
real issue is whether the Board’s findings were unfair or unreasonable.
II. The Board’s Decision
[4]
The
Board found that Mr. Durum had left out important information from his written
narrative and could not corroborate his testimony with documentary evidence. In
particular, Mr. Durum mentioned in his written narrative that the police had
raided the Alevi Association in 2008 and detained him. However, in oral
testimony, he said he was not detained.
[5]
In
his testimony, Mr. Durum said that he was a youth leader of the Alevi Cultural
Association. In his written narrative, he made no mention of this role.
[6]
Mr.
Durum said that he attended the Nowruz celebration in 2008 and was detained and
tortured by police because of it. However, contrary to what one would expect,
there was no corroborating evidence of this event.
[7]
Mr.
Durum described a police raid in 2006 at which he was detained, tortured and
injured. However, this incident was not mentioned in his written narrative. The
same was the case for Mr. Durum’s allegation that he had been detained and
tortured in 2006.
[8]
Mr.
Durum mentioned several occasions on which he had been detained. However, he
never mentioned that he was represented by a lawyer on those occasions, which
is the usual practice in Turkey.
[9]
The
Board also noted that there was no documentary evidence before it confirming
that Mr. Durum was either Alevi or a Kurd. In addition, while Mr. Durum
contended that he was a conscientious objector to military service, there was
no evidence to support that submission. Further, there was evidence before the
Board showing that Mr. Durum could pay off his obligation to
serve in the military.
III. Were the Board’s findings
unfair or unreasonable?
[10]
Mr.
Durum argues that the lawyer representing him before the Board was negligent,
which resulted in unfair factual findings against him.
[11]
In
my view, there is no evidence that Mr. Durum’s counsel was so incompetent that
his hearing before the Board was unfair. The Board did ask Mr. Durum’s counsel
to narrow the scope of his questions; however, it did not conclude that the
questions were irrelevant or suggest that counsel was incompetent. Nor is there
any merit to Mr. Durum’s suggestion that he was told by counsel that he could
not amend his written narrative or that the presiding member questioned him
aggressively. In fact, he did amend his written narrative. There was no evidence
to support Mr. Durum’s submission that the hearing was unfair.
[12]
As
for the reasonableness of the board’s findings, I find that its conclusions accorded
with the evidence, or the lack of evidence. Each of the Board’s concerns,
outlined above, was reflected in the record before it. In the circumstances,
there is no basis for concluding that the Board’s treatment of the evidence was
unreasonable.
IV. Conclusion and Disposition
[13]
I
can find no basis for concluding that Mr. Durum was treated unfairly or that
the Board’s conclusions were unreasonable. I must, therefore, dismiss this
application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general
importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed;
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content