Date: 20080201
Docket: IMM-6318-06
Citation: 2008
FC 131
Ottawa, Ontario, February 1, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
ANTON
MALAJ
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr. Anton
Malaj (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the
Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”), dated
November 22, 2006. In its decision, the Board determined that the Applicant was
neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection as defined in
section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).
[2]
The
Applicant, a citizen of Albania, sought protection in Canada on the basis of his fear of
persecution at the hands of the husband with whose wife he had had an affair.
The affair began while the Applicant, a house painter, was working for the
husband, painting his house.
[3]
The Board
made one negative credibility finding against the Applicant, that is with
respect to his claim that the husband would cause him harm when no actions had
been taken against members of the Applicant’s family who remain in Albania. The Applicant argues that
this finding was based upon speculation, in ignorance of the evidence that he
had submitted and further, that it was irrelevant since his family members were
not responsible for his actions.
[4]
The Board
also found that the Applicant held a Greek passport and it was not satisfied
that he did not hold Greek citizenship. The Applicant argues that this
conclusion is patently unreasonable and is not grounded in the evidence.
[5]
In this
case, the Board found that the Applicant possessed a Greek passport. It was not
convinced that he did not possess Greek citizenship. Further, it was not
persuaded that state protection was unavailable in Albania.
[6]
The
Board’s finding with respect to the possibility that the Applicant holds Greek
citizenship is suspect. The Applicant testified that he had entered Canada, holding a false Greek
passport. The Board made no adverse findings concerning the Applicant’s
testimony that he was not a Greek citizen. I agree with the Applicant’s
submission that in making its finding as to his citizenship, the Board ignored
the evidence before it.
[7]
However,
this error by the Board is not determinative of this application for judicial
review, since the Board turned its mind to the availability of state protection
in Albania, the Applicant’s country of
birth.
[8]
I am
satisfied that, on the basis of the evidence referred to by the Board, that the
finding as to the availability of state protection is not patently
unreasonable. There is a police force and a functioning judiciary. Although the
documentary evidence relating to the current political and economic situation
in Albania shows that there are occasional problems with the behaviour of the
police, the jurisprudence requires that a state provide adequate, if imperfect,
protection to its citizens; see Kadenko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration) (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532 (F.C.A.); leave to
appeal to S.C.C. dismissed (1997), 218 N.R. 80 (note).
[9]
In the
result, this application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question
for certification arising.
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
There is no question for certification arising.
“E.
Heneghan”
Email this Content