Date: 20140120
Docket: IMM-11979-12
Citation: 2014 FC 54
Ottawa, Ontario, January 20, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ZOLTAN ADAM
KAROLINA GONCZI
EVA ADAM
KAROLINA ADAM
ZOLTAN ADAM
ARON ADAM
ADAM ADAM
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered Orally in Toronto on
December 18, 2013)
[1]
This case concerns an application for judicial
review by a Roma couple from Hungary and their five children. The negative
decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board (the Board) which is at issue is dated September 14, 2012. The Board
rejected the Applicants’ convention refugee claims and claims for protection as
not credible [the Decision].
I. Background
[2]
The principal applicant, Zoltan Adam [Zoltan],
is a 43 year old Roma citizen of Hungary. Zoltan’s common law spouse is
Karolina Gonczi (38) [Karolina], and their 5 children range in age from 21 to 8
years old [the Applicants].
[3]
On November 30, 2009, the Applicants say that a
Molotov cocktail was thrown at the family home (the Arson). The attackers
blocked the door so no one could leave. When Zoltan and his family tried to exit
through windows, the attackers cut Zoltan’s arm with a knife many times. They also
pushed Karolina down into broken glass and kicked her repeatedly in the abdomen
and head. Someone called Emergency Services and the perpetrators left the
scene. The Fire Department arrived and concluded that the fire had been caused by
arson. The police were called but they did not come to the house and the case
was never investigated.
[4]
Following the Arson, Zoltan and Karolina went to
the local Roma Minority Council for help. However, they were told that the
Council could not protect them and it would be better if they were to leave the
country.
[5]
On December 9, 2009, Zoltan and his family drove
to Vienna and boarded a plane to Toronto. They made their claims for refugee
protection on arrival.
II. The
Applicants’ PIF
[6]
The Board describes the original PIF narrative
in the following manner in paragraph 5 of the Decision:
[5] In his
original PIF narrative, the principal claimant refers to a number of concerns
he had with regard to discrimination he and his family were subjected to while
they resided in Hungary. He refers to the racial hatred in Hungary with regard to the ethnic Romani and he claimed that he and his family were
subjected to verbal and physical attacks from racist skinheads and the
Hungarian Guard, a neo-nazi organization. The principal claimant indicates that
it is well-known that the Hungarian Guard are brutally murdering Hungarian
citizens of Roma descent, they are throwing Molotov cocktails into Roma homes
and they are simply terrorizing Romas in his country. The authorities and
police in Hungary could not protect the claimants so they came to Canada to seek the protection of the Canadian government as Convention refugees.
[6] In their
amended PIF narrative which was accepted for late filing, the principal
claimant for the first time described a series of attacks against the
Applicants in Hungary. The new narrative describes verbal and physical assaults
by skinheads against the daughter and other children and also included
incidents at their respective schools, at doctors’ offices. As well, the minor
claimant, Adam Zoltan, was involved in a hit-and-run accident caused by
neo-nazis in 2006. The principal claimant’s amended PIF narrative describes the
Arson as the catalyst incident for the family’s exit from Hungary.
III. The Issues
[7]
The principal question is whether the Board’s
negative credibility finding is reasonable.
IV. Discussion
[8]
The Decision was based on the following problems
with the evidence given by the Principal Applicant.
a) Denial
of basic medical attention
In oral
testimony the Principal Applicant initially denied that he sought medical
treatment after the Arson. The Principal Applicant later changed his testimony
and said that he and his family had sought a doctor’s help and had been
refused. However, the amended PIF does not corroborate the revised testimony.
It does not mention that, after the Arson, the family sought medical help but
was refused treatment. The change in testimony and the omission from the
amended PIF were not adequately explained.
b) The Police
Opinion
In
his oral testimony the Principal Applicant said that, although a neighbour
called the police they did not attend the Arson, take statements or
investigate. Yet, the Principal Applicant also said that the police disputed
the firefighters’ opinion that arson had been the cause of the fire. When asked
how the police could disagree if they had not investigated, no adequate
explanation was given.
c) The Molotov Cocktails
The
amended PIF does not mention that a second Molotov cocktail was thrown into the
house; yet the Principal Applicant testified to that effect. He later admitted
that his evidence was speculation.
d) Injury
to the Principal Applicant
The
amended PIF narrative says that the Principal Applicant was stabbed with a
knife “many times” as he tried to exit a window to escape the fire. However, he
orally testified that he was stabbed only once in the hand as he tried to leave
through a door.
e) Injury
to the Wife
The
amended PIF narrative states that the Principal Applicant’s wife was pushed
down onto broken glass and kicked in the stomach and head. However, in oral
evidence the Principal Applicant said she was injured by being pushed into a
glass door. No mention was made of kicking.
f) The
Son’s Accident
The
Principal Applicant said that in 2008, Adam Adam was followed by four neo-Nazis
in a car. They crashed into him causing a broken arm and giving him head
injuries. The Principal Applicant called the ambulance several times and also
called the police. The ambulance did not arrive and the police refused to come apparently
because the Applicants were Roma. The Principal Applicant testified that his
brother Attilla had attempted to get medical proof of the boy’s treatment but had
been denied such proof because he was not Adam’s father. This effort was confirmed
in an email which was in evidence. However, the email was rejected as
fraudulent because none of the Applicants’ documents mentioned that the
Principal Applicant has a brother named Attilla and because the email had no
date, time, source or address or any of the other usual information that
appears on an email that is bona fide.
[9]
The Board concluded that the Arson did not occur
and that the Applicants’ entire refugee claim was fraudulent. The Board said:
The Amnesty International
article, Attacks against Roma in Hungary: January 2008-July 2011 noted
above, clearly indicates that similar incidents have been investigated by the
Hungarian police and a number of suspects have been caught and tried or are
facing trial. The Panel notes that it is not reasonable or plausible that the
complete destruction of the principal claimant’s home would not have been
outlined in this article since the article outlined similar incidents during
this identical time frame. The Panel also notes, although the principal
claimant testified that he sold this house to acquire the money to purchase
airplane tickets to come to Canada, he has provided no proof that this home
even existed or that he owned a structure that burned to the ground.
[…]
For all of these
reasons outlined, the Panel determines, on a balance of probabilities, that it
is not reasonable or plausible that the police did not attend or investigate
this alleged criminal incident since the firefighters themselves indicated that
the fired had been a deliberate case of arson. In the context of this oral
testimony, the documentary evidence with regard to similarly recorded events
and the factors outlined above, the Panel determines, on a balance of
probabilities, that the principal claimant’s testimony with regard to the lack
of any assistance or investigation by the Hungarian police is neither credible
nor plausible. The Panel further determines, based on the negative credibility
findings it has noted above, that the principal claimant has invented this
narrative to support a fraudulent refugee claim.
[10]
In my view, all the credibility findings were
reasonable.
Other Issues
[11]
The Applicants ask me to reweigh the evidence
about county conditions and conclude that the Board acted unreasonably when it decided
that Roma people have adequate state protection and experience discrimination but
not persecution. However, I have not been directed to any documents the Board
failed to mention which are so fundamental that they could be said to justify a
conclusion that these decisions are unreasonable.
[12]
As well, the Board is criticized for failing to
conduct a separate s.97 analysis. However, it is my view that the analysis is
adequate even though it appears under the heading “State Protection”. Further, a
conclusion about the application of section 97 is specifically reached in
paragraph 48 of the Decision.
Certification
[13]
No question was posed for certification.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that for these
reasons, the application for judicial review is hereby dismissed.
“Sandra J. Simpson”
Email this Content