Date:
20131115
Docket: IMM-8835-12
Citation: 2013 FC 1163
Ottawa, Ontario, November 15, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice
Zinn
BETWEEN:
|
|
ZSUZSA ZAGYVA
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
I am not persuaded that the decision of the
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
[RPD] is unreasonable; accordingly, this application must be dismissed.
[2]
The Applicant is an ethnic Hungarian. Her common law partner, Zsolt
Buzas, is also Hungarian but he is of Roma ethnicity. Their claims for
protection were heard together and a single decision of the RPD issued
dismissing both claims on the basis of credibility and state protection.
[3]
Mr. Buzas had a parallel judicial review application of decision under
review. His application was dismissed by Justice McVeigh in Buzas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-8836-12 [Buzas]. Justice McVeigh
found that it was reasonable for the RPD to conclude that Mr. Buzas was not
credible, and that there was adequate state protection.
[4]
With respect to Ms. Zagyva, the RPD determined that the
she was not credible for three reasons not explored by Justice McVeigh in Buzas.
[5]
First, the Applicant testified that she was
attacked by Roma men because she was a non-Roma woman in a relationship with a
Roma man. She claimed that this was not an isolated incidence of racism but a
result of a Roma custom that prohibited mixed race relationships. The RPD found
that if this was indeed a Roma custom, it was reasonable to expect that there
would be some documentary evidence concerning it. However, it noted that there
was no documentary evidence submitted or found in the National Document Package
that spoke of any such Roma custom. The RPD concluded, given the absence of any
objective evidence in circumstances where it would be expected, that no such
custom exists. Accordingly, it found the testimony of the Applicant not to be credible.
[6]
Second, the Applicant testified that she
received threatening emails from a person named Bela Kovacs, but this was not
mentioned in her Personal Information Form [PIF] despite the fact that her
narrative was extremely detailed, and despite the fact that the she had linked
the swastika put on her door to the sender of the emails. The RPD found that the
failure to include this in her PIF in the circumstances, lead to the conclusion
that the Applicant’s testimony regarding the emails was not credible.
[7]
Third, given the lack of credibility in all of
the other aspects of Ms. Zagyva and Mr. Buzas’ claims, the RPD found that the
picture submitted of Ms. Zagyva with the death threat, the picture of a
swastika outside of a door, and emails from Bela Kovacs were concocted to
bolster the claims.
[8]
Credibility findings are subject to the highest
degree of deference from a reviewing court and should be overturned only if
they were made capriciously or without regard for the evidence: Odetoyinbo
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 501 at para 3.
[9]
The RPD did not reach the credibility finding in
a capricious manner. It correctly recited the evidence and provided the basis
for its conclusion that the testimony was not credible. Its assessment falls
fully within the scope set out by the Supreme Court in Dunsmuir v New
Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9. There is no basis to say that its finding that the
Applicant lacked credibility was not reasonable.
[10]
Justice McVeigh in Buzas found that the RPD’s assessment
on state protection was reasonable. Despite the efforts of counsel to persuade
me otherwise, I can see no reason to differ from the assessment in Buzas.
In addition to there being no objective documentary evidence to suggest
that state protection would not be adequate for Ms. Zagyva, she made no
attempts to contact the police in relation to the threat she received, the
hate-motivated vandalism to her house, or the attack. She made no attempt to
avail herself of state protection.
[11]
No question for certification was proposed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed and no question is
certified.
"Russel
W. Zinn"
Email this Content