Date: 20081128
Docket: IMM-2189-08
Citation: 2008 FC 1332
Vancouver, British Columbia, November 28,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
BETWEEN:
GEOVANNY
MORALES CASTRO
Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant, Mr. Geovanny Morales Castro, is a citizen of Honduras who arrived
in Canada on February
5, 2007. Both the Applicant and his brother, Victor Rafael Morales Castro, made
claims for protection under s. 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) on the basis that they were subject to
the risk of retaliation from drug traffickers in Honduras as a result of
Victor’s work in covering a drug bust for the Honduran newspaper, La Prensa.
[2]
In
a decision dated March 26, 2008, a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board,
Refugee Protection Division (the Board), accepted Victor’s claim for protection
but denied that of the Applicant. The Board rejected the claim on the basis
that the Applicant was not personally targeted by any drug traffickers
associated with his brother and that he had a viable internal flight
alternative (IFA) in Tegucipgalpa, Honduras. The
Applicant seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision.
[3]
The
only issue in this case arises with respect to the finding of the Board that
the Applicant was not personally at risk. The question is whether that
determination was reasonable. On the particular facts of this case, a
conclusion by this Court that that finding was unreasonable will put the
reasonableness of the IFA into doubt. However, for the reasons that follow, I
conclude that the Board’s decision was reasonable; accordingly, both findings
of the Board will stand.
[4]
The
parties acknowledge that the appropriate standard of review of the Board’s
decision is reasonableness.
[5]
As
noted, the Board concluded that the alleged agents of persecution had targeted
Victor, but not the Applicant. The Applicant submits that, in coming to this
conclusion, the Board ignored or misapprehended certain evidence about contacts
or events that were referred to in the testimony. Having reviewed the
testimony, I do not agree.
[6]
A
review of the transcript indicates that there was little evidence indicating
that the Applicant (as opposed to Victor) may have been in danger. In sum, that
evidence was as follows:
·
A
man had asked the Applicant’s father’s neighbours about the whereabouts of the
Applicant and his brother
·
Two
individuals had asked questions about the Applicant at a pool place frequented
by the Applicant
·
The
Applicant’s uncle told him that he had heard that his employee had heard that
an individual had asked a server from a nearby store about the Applicant
[7]
In
addition to being vague, unsubstantiated and based on hearsay, this testimony
must also be considered in light of the fact that the record is clear that the
Applicant – unlike his brother Victor – had never been personally contacted by
the alleged agents of persecution. There was also no evidence that the men who
had inquired about him were criminals or drug traffickers. The evidence shows
that the father’s killing may have been connected to Victor; however, the
Applicant was not the target. The third brother, who lived in Honduras for some
time after the publication of the article, had no contact from the agents of
persecution.
[8]
In
conclusion, I find that the Board’s determination that the Applicant had not
been targeted was reasonable and falls “within a range of possible, acceptable
outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at para. 47). This application for judicial
review will be dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed;
2.
No
question of general importance is certified.
“Judith
A. Snider”
Email this Content