Date: 19980818
Docket: IMM-3346-97
Between:
Jose Alfredo CHAVARRIA OROZCO
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Refugee Division) dated July 14, 1997, determining that the applicant, a citizen of Costa Rica, is not a Convention refugee.
[2] It is necessary to reproduce the following passage from the decision of the Refugee Division:
| [TRANSLATION] After reviewing all the evidence, both oral and documentary, the panel found that the claimant is not a "Convention refugee" for the following reasons. |
| The claimant did not establish that he could not obtain the protection of his country. He never sought this protection, alleging that the police are connected with the capitalists and that it would have made matters worse for him. |
| The panel does not believe this excuse. Exhibit A-11 establishes that Costa Rica is a democratic country and that its police force is independent of government. The government apparently made it even more independent in 1993. |
| Having regard to this information, the panel does not believe that the claimant cannot obtain the protection of the authorities of his country. |
| The evidence which was submitted before us is insufficient to establish that if the claimant were to return to his country of origin, he would have a "reasonable chance" of persecution, in the words of Adjei2 . |
| 1 A-1 : Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995, tab 5. |
| 2 Adjei v. M.E.I., [1989] 2 F.C. 680 (C.A.). |
[3] The only issue to be determined is whether the applicant has managed to establish the inability of the State of Costa Rica to protect him. The burden of establishing this was on the applicant, as Mr. Justice La Forest explained in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at pages 724-725:
| The issue that arises, then, is how, in a practical sense, a claimant makes proof of a state"s inability to protect its nationals as well as the reasonable nature of the claimant"s refusal actually to seek out this protection. On the facts of this case, proof on this point was unnecessary, as representatives of the state authorities conceded their inability to protect Ward. Where such an admission is not available, however, clear and convincing confirmation of a state"s inability to protect must be provided. For example, a claimant might advance testimony of similarly situated individuals let down by the state protection arrangement or the claimant"s testimony of past personal incidents in which state protection did not materialize. Absent some evidence, the claim should fail, as nations should be presumed capable of protecting their citizens. Security of nationals is, after all, the essence of sovereignty. Absent a situation of complete breakdown of state apparatus, such as that recognized in Lebanon in Zalzali, it should be assumed that the state is capable of protecting a claimant. |
| [My emphasis.] |
[4] In the case at bar, the evidence shows that the only reason given by the applicant to explain his failure to turn to the police lies in his simple belief that they are corrupt and that he therefore could not have obtained their protection. Not only is this belief unsupported by any other serious evidence, it is somewhat inconsistent with the documentary evidence to which the Refugee Division refers in its decision. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it was reasonable for the Refugee Division to have found that the applicant had not established an essential factor in the definition of a "Convention refugee", namely, the inability of a state to protect its nationals.
[5] In the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The parties acknowledge that there is no question to be certified.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 18, 1998
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19980818
Docket: IMM-3346-97
Ottawa, Ontario, the 18th day of August 1998
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
Jose Alfredo CHAVARRIA OROZCO
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Division dated July 14, 1997, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-3346-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: Jose Alfredo CHAVARRIA OROZCO and MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: July 20, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER BY PINARD J.
DATED August 18, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Jorge Colasurdo FOR THE APPLICANT
Michèle Joubert FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jorge Colasurdo FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenburg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada