Date:
20130725
Docket:
IMM-11413-12
Citation:
2013 FC 812
[UNREVISED
ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario,
July 25, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
|
|
BIBIANA BASTIEN
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is in response to an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee
Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
[2]
According
to the RPD’s decision, the applicant, a citizen of Saint-Lucia, is not a
“refugee” within the meaning of section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA), nor is she a “person in need of protection”
under section 97 of the same Act.
[3]
The
applicant alleges that she was in an abusive relationship with an individual
from 1995 to 2004.
[4]
First,
she moved out of her home to stay at her aunt’s, where, unfortunately, the
individual who abused her visited often. In 2000, she claims she was hospitalized,
following which she filed a complaint with police, who failed to follow up on
the complaint.
[5]
After
her hospitalization, she came to Canada for a three-week period before
returning to Saint-Lucia. The individual continued to be violent with her, to
the point where her psychological behaviour became so desperate that she wanted
to commit suicide.
[6]
In
2003, following allegations of repeated acts of violence, she purportedly filed
complaints with the police which were not acted upon.
[7]
The
applicant left her country in 2004, entering Canada by means of a visa that
expired in August 2005; nearly one year later she applied for permanent
residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Her application was denied
in December 2008. In 2009, she sought refugee protection, claiming that her
abuser was pursuing her.
[8]
Upon
being asked why she had returned to Saint-Lucia, following her problems, she
answered that once she was in Canada her mother could no longer take care of
her; she explained that at the time she did not understand her own situation,
nor that of her immigration file with respect to the Canadian authorities; this
is why she did not seek refugee protection upon her arrival, but instead did so
only after having applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds.
[9]
The
RPD was perplexed by the lack of logic shown by the applicant when she made no
attempt to regularize her status in Canada until she had become illegal in
Canada, from 2005 to 2006.
[10]
None
of the applicant’s documents refer to her particular personal allegations, only
to the risks if she were to return.
[11]
The
Court considered all of the testimonial evidence and the applicant’s fear, in
addition to the objective evidence before it.
[12]
According
to the RPD, the applicant could have been protected by the state apparatus in
her country. The case law analyzed by the Court shows that, according to the
evidence adduced by the applicant, she could have taken steps to receive state
protection.
[13]
State
protection is available due to the evolution of such services. Furthermore, the
RPD, after an in-depth analysis of the evidence, and according to case law
references cited by the RPD itself and the evidence in the record, showed that
in addition to the police, there are non-governmental organizations funded by
the state that could have helped the applicant in light of the improvements to
such protection services over time (see RPD’s Reasons at paras 27, 28 and 29).
[14]
Moreover,
the Court shares the view of the RPD that the lack of evidence corroborating
the fact that the applicant filed complaints with the police on three occasions
renders her evidence deficient.
[15]
At
any rate, the applicant has not shown that the RPD’s decision was unreasonable
(Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers'
Association, 2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; Newfoundland and Labrador
Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62,
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 708).
[16]
For
all of the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s application for judicial review
is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS that the applicant’s application for judicial
review be dismissed without any question of general importance to certify.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Certified
true translation
Sebastian
Desbarats, Translator
Email this Content