Docket: IMM-2930-11
Citation:
2015 FC 1062
Toronto, Ontario, September 10, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
TOMAS DEMETER
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Reasons
delivered orally in Toronto on September 9, 2015)
[1]
Tomas Demeter is a Rom from the Czech Republic
whose claim for refugee protection was rejected by the Refugee Protection
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The Board found that Mr. Demeter
had failed to rebut the presumption that state protection would be available to
him in the Czech Republic.
[2]
Mr. Demeter did not appear at the hearing of
this application and his counsel had previously been removed from the record as
a result of counsel’s inability to locate Mr. Demeter or to obtain instructions
from him. Consequently, the matter was decided on the basis of Mr. Demeter’s
written representations and the Respondent’s oral and written submissions.
[3]
Mr. Demeter’s Notice of Application made
allegations of institutional bias on the part of the Refugee Protection
Division. These allegations were subsequently withdrawn by counsel then acting
for Mr. Demeter, and what remains to be addressed are his allegations that the
Board applied the wrong test in assessing the availability of state protection
for the Roma population of the Czech Republic, and his argument that the
Board’s decision was substantively unreasonable.
I.
State Protection
[4]
I will deal first with the test used by the
Board with respect to the issue of state protection. This is a question of law
that is reviewable on the correctness standard: Buri v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 45 at paras. 16 and 18, 446 F.T.R.
57.
[5]
In the present case, the Board discusses the
test to be applied in evaluating the level of state protection available to a
refugee claimant in his or her country of origin at paragraph 26 of its
decision. A review of this paragraph confirms that the Board properly
understood that the question to be asked in a case such as this is whether the
state protection available to a refugee claimant in his or her country of
origin is adequate. The Board then correctly articulated the relevant
principles to be applied in assessing the adequacy of the state protection
available to the Roma population of the Czech Republic, and no error on the
part of the Board has been established in this regard.
[6]
The Board appears to have accepted Mr. Demeter’s
evidence of past mistreatment based upon his ethnicity, including his claim to
have been a victim of two vicious attacks by skinheads in 2007 and 2008. The
Board did not, however, accept Mr. Demeter’s explanation for his failure to
seek the assistance of the Czech police, even though, in one case, he was aware
of the identity of at least two of his assailants. Given that Mr. Demeter’s
reluctance to seek police assistance stemmed from experiences some twenty years
earlier, it was reasonably open to the Board to reject his explanation.
II.
The Requirement to Seek Assistance from
Non-Police Agencies
[7]
Mr. Demeter also argues that the Board erred by
requiring that he seeks the protection of state agencies other than the police.
In support of this argument, the Applicant refers in particular to paragraphs
27 and 28 of the Board’s reasons. The problem with this argument is that
nowhere in the Board’s reasons does it make any such finding, whether
paragraphs 27 and 28 of its reasons or elsewhere.
III.
Discrimination Versus Persecution
[8]
Finally, Mr. Demeter argues that the Board erred
in finding that he had merely been the victim of discrimination rather than
persecution, despite the fact that he had been the victim of two vicious
attacks by skinheads.
[9]
Once again, Mr. Demeter’s argument is based upon
a faulty premise, as the Board made no such finding.
[10]
While the Board did discuss the widespread
discrimination against the Roma population of the Czech Republic in matters
such as education, employment and housing, I do not read the reasons of the
Board as suggesting that violent, racially-motivated attacks are not
persecutory in nature.
IV.
Conclusion
[11]
In conclusion, having failed to establish that
the Board erred in law or that its decision was unreasonable, it follows that
the application for judicial review will be dismissed. I agree with the
Respondent that this case is fact-specific and does not raise a question that
is suitable for certification.
Email this Content