Date: 20041109
Docket: IMM-9455-03
Ottawa, Ontario, this 9th day of November, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PHELAN
BETWEEN:
RAQUEL BELEN RUIZ FIGUEROA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Overview
[1] The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") held that Ms. Figueroa was not a refugee or a person in need of protection because she had an Internal Flight Alternative ("IFA") and no objective fear of persecution. This is the judicial review of that decision.
Background
[2] Ms. Figueroa, a citizen of Cuba, alleges that she will be persecuted if she returns to Cuba because of her perceived political opinion. She has been interrogated by Cuban authorities about her visits to her daughter in Canada and about alleged contact with Cuban dissident when she was here. During one of the two incidents of interrogation, Ms. Figueroa's home was searched by the head of the Committee for the Defence of the Revolution, a political action group, and her VCR, TV and some video tapes were confiscated.
[3] Ms. Figueroa concluded that she could not live in peace in Cuba. She obtained an invitation from her daughter in Canada to visit, bribed an official for an exit visa and made her refugee claim two months after her arrival.
[4] In the Board's decision, there is no discussion of the fact that Ms. Figueroa was able to leave the country, although only after bribing a Cuban official; the official apparently did not fear repercussions for allowing her to leave. Nor did the Board refer to the two-month delay in seeking refugee status when the whole purpose of the visit to Canada was to ensure that Ms. Figueroa never had to return to Cuba.
Board Decision
[5] The Board commenced its analysis with a consideration of the issue of an IFA before first making a finding that the Applicant had no well-founded fear of persecution.
[6] Despite this somewhat unusual procedure, the Board considered the issue of her fear of persecution. The Board did not accept her contention that she would be viewed with suspicion because her files would have been transferred from authorities in Havana to the authorities in Camaguey, if she returned to Camaguey - the proposed IFA.
[7] The Board noted that Ms. Figueroa was living with her sister and brother-in-law on an army base in Havana. As a result, the Board determined that she had been the focus of Cuban authorities' attention because she was a person living on a military base who travelled outside the country and not because of her political beliefs. Neither her sister nor her brother-in-law were interrogated or questioned about Ms. Figueroa or her alleged anti-Castro connections.
[8] The Board held that moving to Camaguey would not be unduly harsh because Ms. Figueroa had parents, three brothers and a sister there.
[9] Having concluded that Ms. Figueroa had an IFA, in part because she was not persecuted on account of her political beliefs or activities, the Board then went on to conclude that she had not been persecuted. The interrogation and the confiscation of property, individually and cumulatively, did not constitute persecution.
Analysis
[10] The issue of the existence of a viable IFA is to be reviewed on the standard of patent unreasonableness as confirmed in numerous cases, including Sertkaya et. al. v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2004 F.C. 734.
[11] The Applicant objects to the manner in which the Board conducted its analysis. Counsel argues that the Board cannot turn to the issue of an IFA until it has made a finding that an applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to their home.
[12] While this is the usual method of analysis, it is apparent that the Board combined the analysis of fear of persecution and of possible IFA in one. I find nothing improper in this - the relevant legal issues were considered, perhaps not in the usual order. I see no substantive issue in the Board's method of proceeding.
[13] The Applicant objected to the Board's finding that she posed no threat to Cuban authorities and was not a dissident. The Applicant says that the Board erred by substituting its opinion as to the Applicant's profile and status in Cuba for that of the Cuban authorities.
[14] The Board's finding cannot be considered in isolation from the other facts found by the Board, including the possible reasons that Ms. Figueroa was of some interest to the authorities and the complete absence of interest by the Cuban authorities in other members of her family, even as sources of information about or against her.
[15] The Board's conclusion was not so much a substitution of viewpoints as a finding of implausibility. That type of finding is reviewed on a standard of patent unreasonableness. The Board's conclusion was at least reasonable against the background of the other facts in this case.
[16] Finally, the Board held that the events complained of - interrogation and confiscation of some articles - did not amount to persecution. Considered against the standard of reasonableness simpliciteur the Board's conclusion is reasonable.
Conclusion
[17] For these reasons this application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[18] There is no question to be certified.
"Michael L. Phelan"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-9455-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: RAQUEL BELEN RUIZ FIGUEROA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PHELAN
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. D. Clifford Luyt
For the Applicant
Ms. Allison Phillips
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Waldman & Associates
Toronto, Ontario
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent