Date: 19980916
Docket: IMM-3853-97
Between:
GEORGY VIKTOROV SOKOLOV
ALEXANDR SOKOLOV
VIKTORIYA SOKOLOVA
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision rendered on August 11, 1997 by Board members Jean-Pierre Beauquier and Jean-Guy Roussy of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Division.
[2] The plaintiffs are seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Board dismissing their application, in which they allege having a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, Kazakhstan, because of their Russian nationality of origin.
[3] In its decision, the tribunal states that "[Translation ] The claimants" alleged fear of persecution cannot be accepted since there is no relationship between the said fear and the reasons set out in the Convention." Later, the tribunal states: "[Translation ] It should be noted that the claimants have alleged that they fear persecution because of their nationality." In the tribunal"s opinion, the claimants were victims of acts perpetrated by persons linked with organized crime in Kazakhstan. The tribunal goes on to cite a number of examples of acts taken from the record.
[4] The tribunal notes that the plaintiffs did not claim refugee status during the ten days they were in the Czech Republic.
[5] And the tribunal goes on to say, and I quote:
[Translation] Finally, asked why they had not claimed refugee status in the Czech Republic, the claimants failed to satisfy the Tribunal with their answers.
[6] As the defendant"s counsel quite right argues, the Refugee Division drew no negative conclusions concerning the credibility of the plaintiffs. The Refugee Division thought the plaintiffs had been victims of extortion attempts. However, it held that these attempts could not support a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the five grounds provided for in the Convention.
[7] The defendant"s counsel rightly argues that there is no evidence showing that these criminal acts perpetrated against the plaintiffs were motivated by nationalist reasons on the part of their perpetrators.
[8] To succeed in their claim, the plaintiffs had to establish some relationship between their fear of persecution and one of the reasons contemplated in the Convention:
To succeed, refugee claimants must establish a link between themselves and persecution for a Convention reason.1
[9] The Refugee Division"s conclusion concerning the absence of a link between the plaintiffs" alleged fear and one of the five reasons in the Convention is not patently unreasonable.
[10] As the cases hold, and the defendant"s counsel rightly argued, the Refugee Division is fully justified, in its assessment of the plaintiffs" subjective fear, in considering the fact that they stayed in the Czech Republic without claiming refugee status there.
[11] In view of the principles laid down by the cases, and the evidence presented, the Refugee Division correctly held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they had a subjective fear of persecution.
[12] In view of the preceding, I think the tribunal"s deductions from the facts that were put in evidence was not so unreasonable as to necessitate the intervention of this Court.
[13] Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
[14] It is unnecessary to allow an appeal by certifying that a serious question of general importance is involved, pursuant to section 83 of the Act.
| Pierre Blais |
| J. |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 16, 1998
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| FILE NO.: IMM-3853-97 |
| STYLE: GEORGY VIKTOROV SOKOLOV ET AL. v. M.C.I. |
| PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL |
| DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 25, 1998 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF BLAIS J.
| DATED: SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 |
APPEARANCES:
| No one FOR THE APPLICANT |
| Ms. Caroline Doyon FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Saint-Pierre, Grenier FOR THE APPLICANT |
Montréal, Quebec
| Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT |
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
__________________1 Rizkallah v. M.E.I. (1994), 156 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.).