Date: 20091007
Docket: IMM-550-09
Citation: 2009 FC 1017
Ottawa, Ontario, October 7, 2009
PRESENT: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
NINA
KLETTCHENKO
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The decision of the
Refugee Protection Division is not extensive. Some of its language is
equivocal. However, the applicant, an eighty-six year old Russian grandmother perceived
by her neighbours to be of Jewish heritage, has established no reviewable error
in the RPD determination that the anti-Semitism she encountered in Moscow “does not rise to the intensity of persecution.” In the
circumstances, it will not be necessary to consider the internal flight
alternative and state protection issues.
[2] One of the
applicant’s principal arguments is that the member did not consider the
“forward-looking” aspect of the definition of a Convention refugee.
[3] While it may have
been preferable for him to say so more clearly, I read the member’s decision as
reflecting what was said on behalf of the applicant during the refugee hearing
closing submissions (at page 551 of the tribunal record): “… what would happen
in the future is very similar to what happened in the past. [The applicant]
would continue to be subjected to threats and intimidation and harassment…”.
[4] This is not a happy outcome.
No one should be required to deal with anti-Semitism in any form of its
expression. However, the determination that the applicant was not a Convention
refugee nor a person in need of protection was one open to the member on the
facts of this case.
[5] If I had any doubts
on the issue, I take comfort in the applicant’s testimony during her first
refugee hearing (at page 513 of the tribunal record):
MEMBER: I need you to
tell me that if you were to go back, if you were going back to Russia tomorrow,
what would you fear? Take your time, please.
CLAIMANT: I would be
afraid and scared of the same as I was afraid of when I left, because of the
way I – my difficulties walking. I’m staying at home and tv is only friend and
neighbour and assistant, everything, person to talk to. And since we left, I
think the situation is even harder. It’s even worse than it was before. And
since I cannot – I don’t work/walk, you know, this is the only information I
get is this tv. And there – as long as person is interested in what’s going
around, then, then you can consider it living, sen – when it stops, then you
don’t live anymore. And the situation there is even worse than it was before.
MEMBER: How do you
know that?
CLAIMANT: Because I,
when I was watching tv for three days, when I was watching tv two or three
days, there was a questioning and information gathered about how many people in
Russia do believe in future. And only 12 percent believe that there is a better
future. Eighty-eight (88) percent would not believe that it will be a better
day coming.
[6] The member noted that
the applicant “was seeking a better place to live and raised the refugee claim
as a means of staying in Canada.” He had available to him the applicant’s information in support of her
successful visa application. The applicant sold her residence some two weeks
prior to entering Canada with
her visitor’s visa. His analysis does not invite the Court’s intervention.
[7] Accordingly, this application for judicial review will be
dismissed. The Court agrees with the parties that there is no serious question
for certification.
[8] The applicant may not
be a Convention refugee. However, her daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren
are Canadian citizens. She is in her 87th year. Hopefully, the applicant
will be allowed to remain in Canada in the application of the family unification principles underlying the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that this application for judicial review
is dismissed.
“Allan
Lutfy”
Email this Content