Date: 20000824
Docket: IMM-5031-99
Between:
DOROTHÉE UMUHOZA
CARINE MUNEZERO
MARIUS DIDIER NKURUNZIZA
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULTJ.
[1] The very eloquent plea by the plaintiff was unable to persuade the Court that it should intervene to quash this decision by the Refugee Division.
[2] According to the evidence in the record,1it is quite possible that the plaintiff's motherand children were held unjustly from October 1997 by the Ruandan authorities because she had allegedly rented to two young persons who had committed genocide one of the apartments owned by her. However, based on the testimony of the plaintiff herself2and her sister's statement,3it was not unreasonable for the panel to come to the conclusion that the mother's arrest was only a pretext and the jealousy of the neighbours was the real reason for her arrest,4in view of the materially advantageous position of the plaintiff's family.
[3] It is well established that for a claimant to succeed in a refugee status claim he or she must establish a link between the persecution alleged by him or her and one of the grounds mentioned in the Convention.5At the same time, determining whether this link has been established is a question of fact which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Refugee Division, as indicated by Jerome A.C.J. in Orellana v. M.C.I., September 19, 1995, IMM-3520-94 (F.C.T.D.), at para. 19 of his judgment:
| I am also satisfied that the Refugee Division reasonably and properly concluded that the applicants' story, even if true, did not disclose a nexus to any ground set out in the Convention refugee definition. A determination with respect to "nexus" is largely a question of fact and therefore entirely within the tribunal's expertise to make. |
[4] In the case at bar the Court was not shown that the Refugee Division's conclusion regarding the absence of any nexus between the alleged fear and one of the five grounds mentioned in the Convention was unreasonable. On the contrary, it appeared from the plaintiff's account that her fear resulted from her mother's arrest following false accusations made against her because of the jealousy of her neighbours. As the panel indicated, it was not shown that the jealousy was connected to any of the grounds in the Convention, and in particular the ethnic group of the plaintiff's family.
[5] As to the plaintiff herself, it was not unreasonable for the panel to consider that the fact the plaintiff continued her visits to the prison despite the attack which she said she suffered there on December 15, 1998, continuing to work and live in the same place with her husband and children, contradicted a well-founded fear of persecution in her case.
[6] For these reasons, the application for judicial review must be dismissed. There is no basis for certifying a serious question of general importance in the case at bar.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
| PIERRE DENAULT Judge |
Ottawa, Ontario
August 24, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: IMM-5031-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: DOROTHÉE UMUHOZA et al.
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 14, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DENAULT J.
DATED: AUGUST 24, 2000
APPEARANCES:
JEAN-FRANÇOIS FISET FOR THE APPLICANT
PATRICIA DESLAURIERS FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JEAN-FRANÇOIS FISET FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________1 Panel's Record (P.R.), pp. 320-324.
5 Rizkallah v. M.E.I. (1992), 156 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.); Sajous v. M.E.I., A-1588-92, 12/11/93 (F.C.).