Docket: IMM-11959-12
Citation: 2015 FC 992
Toronto, Ontario,
August 19, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
RUZENA
KOKYOVA,
AND
LUBOS KOKY
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Reasons delivered orally from the
Bench in Toronto on August 19, 2015)
[1]
The Applicants are Czech Roma who seek judicial
review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division rejecting their claim
for refugee protection on credibility grounds. The Board also found that
adequate state protection would, in any event, be available to the Applicants
in the Czech Republic.
[2]
The Applicants originally alleged that there was
institutional bias on the part of the Refugee Protection Division, but they
have since withdrawn this allegation. What the Applicants do still say is that
the Board’s negative credibility findings were unreasonable, and that the Board
erred in its assessment of the adequacy of the state protection that is available
to Roma in the Czech Republic.
[3]
Having heard from the Applicants and having
reviewed the record that was before the Board, I am satisfied that the Board’s
credibility findings were entirely reasonable.
[4]
For example, there were inconsistencies in the
Applicants’ evidence as to whether or not they had sought the assistance of the
police following an alleged attack by skinheads in 2008. At one point, the
Principal Applicant stated that he could not recall whether or not he had
contacted the police following the alleged attack. He later asserted that he
had contacted the police a week after the attack. Still later, the Principal
Applicant stated that he had never contacted the police for any reason after a
failed attempt to obtain their assistance following an attack that had occurred
some twenty years previously.
[5]
The Principal Applicant was also unable to
provide coherent evidence to support his claim that he was fired from his
employment in 2010 because of his ethnicity. It was, moreover, reasonable for
the Board to question the plausibility of the Applicants’ claim that this was
the event that caused the couple to leave the Czech Republic given that in the
week following the loss of the Principal Applicant’s job, the Applicants were
allegedly able to:
•
decide to leave the Czech Republic;
•
sell the home where they resided for more than
twenty years;
•
make travel arrangements;
•
pack all their personal effects; and
•
leave the country for Canada.
In light of this, I
am satisfied that the Board’s finding that the Applicants’ story of past
persecution was not credible was entirely reasonable.
[6]
That said, notwithstanding the problems with the
Applicants’ story, their refugee claims could still have succeeded had they had
been able to demonstrate that they had a well-founded fear of persecution in
the Czech Republic based upon their profile as Czech Roma.
[7]
The Board considered this question, and it is
apparent from paragraph 11 of the Board’s reasons that it applied the correct
legal test in assessing the adequacy of the state protection that is available
to Roma in the Czech Republic. The Board also specifically noted at paragraph
41 of its reasons that it is not enough for a country to make efforts to
protect its minority citizens, and that those efforts must, in fact, translate
into adequate state protection.
[8]
The evidence as to the adequacy of the state
protection that is available to the Roma population of the Czech Republic is
certainly mixed. It is, however, evident from a review of the Board’s reasons
that it was well aware of the conflicting evidence on this point. The Board
weighed the conflicting evidence and considered that, on balance, adequate
state protection would be available to these Applicants in the Czech Republic.
It is not the job of this Court sitting on judicial review to reweigh that
evidence.
[9]
Consequently, the Applicants have not persuaded
me that the Board erred in its assessment of the country condition information,
and accordingly the application for judicial review is dismissed. I agree with
the parties that the issues raised by this case are fact-specific, and do not
raise a question that is suitable for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Anne L. Mactavish”
Email this Content