Date: 20040414
Docket: IMM-277-03
Citation: 2004 FC 559
Ottawa, Ontario, this 14th day of April, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
ROZALIA TUNDE ORBAN
ATTILA PAL
VIVIEN ORBAN
ATTILA JR. PAL
TIBOR MILASKICS
ZSANETT KOSZEGI
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The applicants are Hungarian citizens of Roma heritage. They came to Canada in 2000 and claimed refugee status on the basis of the mistreatment they alleged to have suffered at home because of their ethnicity. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed their claims. The Board felt the applicants had failed both to support their claims with sufficient evidence and to show that state authorities in Hungary could not protect them. They argue that the Board erred when it arrived at those conclusions and ask me to order a new hearing before a different panel.
[2] I cannot find a basis for overturning the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
[3] The claimants presented two main issues:
1. Did the Board err when it made adverse findings of credibility?
2. Was the Board's analysis of the evidence relating to state protection adequate?
II. Analysis
[4] I cannot order a new hearing if the Board's conclusions were reasonable in light of the evidence before it. In respect of both issues raised by the claimants, I find the Board's decision to be reasonable.
A. Did the Board err when it made adverse findings of credibility?
[5] There are two aspects to this issue: First, there was some confusion before the Board about the claimants' written narratives set out in their Personal Information Forms. It appeared there were two versions of the narratives. The applicants said that they were not satisfied with the first translation into English, so it was re-done. Still, there seemed to be discrepancies that could not be explained by translation problems. In the circumstances, the Board was concerned about the fairness of the proceedings and offered the applicants a new hearing. Their counsel at the time concluded that the applicants were not prejudiced by these developments and so there was no reason not to continue. The Board referred to some of the discrepancies in the written narratives when it concluded that the applicants' evidence was not credible.
[6] Second, the Board did not believe Ms. Koszegi, who claimed to have been the victim of domestic violence. The Board referred to several inconsistencies in her testimony and rejected this aspect of her claim. In doing so, the Board said: "because of the claimant's overall lack of credibility, the panel finds that there was insufficient credible or trustworthy evidence on the basis of which to determine that the claimants were Convention refugees" (emphasis added). The claimants argue that the Board improperly held the inconsistent evidence of Ms. Koszegi against all of them.
[7] Having reviewed the record, it appears to me that the Board's conclusions about the claimants' credibility were reasonably open to it on the evidence before it. Further, the Board was careful to ensure that the proceedings were fair and offered them the possibility of a new hearing. In any event, notwithstanding its concerns about credibility in certain areas, the Board accepted that the applicants had been persecuted and turned to the issue whether state protection was available to them. I see no basis for overturning the Board's conclusions on the issue of credibility. Ultimately, the Board decided the case on the issue of state protection.
B. Was the Board's analysis of the evidence relating to state protection adequate?
[8] The applicants suggest that the Board's analysis of the evidence of state protection was superficial and, perhaps, influenced by its concerns about credibility. I cannot agree with this characterization of the Board's reasons.
[9] The applicants described several violent assaults that they had endured, some at the hands of skinhead groups. Still, the Board found that Hungary is taking serious steps to improve the situation of its Roma population. Those measures include better education, improved social benefits and greater police protection. The applicants argue that the Board neglected to consider whether any of those measures could actually protect them from the kinds of violent acts they had endured, especially assaults by skinheads. In addition, they suggest the Board failed to consider evidence that the police themselves sometimes abused Roma people.
[10] In my view, the Board analyzed the documentary evidence on state protection adequately. The evidence disclosed that in recent years violent acts against Roma by skinheads have been few, and are on the wane. When they do occur, state authorities prosecute the perpetrators diligently.
[11] The applicants visited the police only once, and were disappointed with the response they received. But the Board noted that relations between Roma and the police have improved significantly in recent years. Its conclusion that the applicants should have tried harder to secure police assistance was not unreasonable.
[12] Further, the Board noted that other state supported agencies exist in Hungary to assist Roma with the various problems they may encounter as a result of wide-spread discrimination. The Board did not err in suggesting that, in addition to the police, the applicants could avail themselves of the services of various state-supported advocacy organizations: Szucs v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1614 (T.D.) (QL).
[13] The Board did not refer to evidence of police abuse of Roma, although there was some reference to this problem in the documentary evidence before it. These references identify isolated incidents of police abuse. These events are obviously worrisome, but they appear to be against the broader trend toward better relations between Roma and police cited by the Board. In my view, the Board's conclusion that state protection is available in Hungary was reasonably open to it on the evidence.
[14] Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-277-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ORBAN ET AL v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO
DATE OF HEARING: Monday April 5, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY : The Hon. Mr. Justice O'Reilly
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Peter Ivanyi FOR THE APPLICANTS
Ms. Mielka Visnic FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ROCHON GENOVA
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS
MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT