Docket:
IMM-6653-10
Citation:
2012 FC 797
Ottawa, Ontario, June 21, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
LAUREAN IOAN SUCIU
(A.K.A. LAUREAN-IOAN SUCIU)
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr.
Laurean Ioan Suciu sought refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of
persecution in Romania as a person of Roma ethnicity. He claims that he faced
discrimination and violence and, when he told the police, they beat and
threatened him and then burned down his house. In 2008, he fled Romania to London, England, then to Mexico, and then finally to Canada.
[2]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board found that Mr. Suciu’s claims were
not credible and that he would not face serious harm if he returned to Romania. He argues that the Board’s conclusions were unreasonable because it failed to
refer to documentary evidence that supported his claim. In addition, there were
difficulties with translating his testimony at the hearing, which contributed
to the Board’s credibility findings. Mr. Suciu asks me to quash the Board’s
decision and order a new hearing.
[3]
I
can find no basis for overturning the Board’s decision. Its credibility
findings and conclusion were supported by the evidence and, therefore, were not
unreasonable. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
[4]
The
sole issue is whether the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
II. The Board’s Decision
[5]
The
Board found Mr. Suciu’s testimony about his encounter with the police not to be
credible. For example, he had given inconsistent evidence about the number of
times he had gone to the police station, when he had been beaten, the
instrument the police had used to assault him, and the circumstances
surrounding the alleged arson.
[6]
In
addition, the Board found documents Mr. Suciu had put forward to corroborate
his claim not to be reliable. A police complaint form did not specify the
grounds of the complaint; a report relating to the house fire did not state the
cause of the fire; and an electronic version of a news report could easily have
been altered or fabricated.
[7]
Finally,
the Board found that Mr. Suciu had not presented clear and convincing evidence
that state protection was unavailable in Romania.
III. Was the Board’s
Decision Unreasonable?
[8]
Mr.
Suciu contends that the Board ignored evidence about the conditions in Romania. That evidence corroborated his allegations of discrimination against, and serious
mistreatment of, the Roma population. In addition, the Board unreasonably
expected him to provide corroborative documentary evidence of his claim.
[9]
Mr.
Suciu also submits that language problems at the hearing affected the Board’s
assessment of his credibility. Further, the Board did not take into account his
limited education and his nervousness about testifying.
[10]
In
my view, the Board’s decision was supported with detailed credibility findings
and clear reasons. In several important areas, Mr. Suciu’s evidence was
inconsistent. These inconsistencies could not be explained by language
difficulties, lack of education, or nerves. Accordingly, the Board’s conclusion
that his testimony lacked credibility was not unreasonable. This finding was
also sufficient to dispose of Mr. Suciu’s claim of a lack of state protection.
He was unable to provide reliable evidence that the state had failed to provide
him protection when he needed it.
[11]
Further,
the Board did not ignore the documentary evidence about the circumstances
facing the Roma population in Romania; it specifically referred to it.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[12]
The
Board’s conclusions were based on the evidence before it and fell within the
range of defensible outcomes based on the facts and the law. Therefore, its
decision was not unreasonable and I must 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