Date: 20050207
Docket: IMM-3511-04
Citation: 2005 FC 176
BETWEEN:
KATALIN GYORFI
Applicant
and
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
[1] This application is for judicial review of a negative decision of a Pre-Removal Assessment Officer (the "Officer") dated March 2, 2004 in which he concluded that Katalin Gyorfi (the "Applicant") is not a person in need of protection (the "Decision").
[2] The Applicant is Hungarian and of Roma ethnicity. She was bullied and beaten as a young child at school and, as a result, left school and completed her education by correspondence.
[3] She eventually became involved with a non-Roma boyfriend who degraded, beat and raped her. He also arranged a gang rape by his friends. The police, on being informed about the abuse she was suffering, told her that they could do nothing unless there was a death. She did not again report to the police.
[4] She fled to the United States where she stayed for eight months without making a refugee claim. Thereafter, she returned to Hungary. When she learned that her ex-boyfriend had heard that she had returned, her evidence was that she contemplated suicide even though they had no contact and he made no threats.
[5] On March 23, 2001, she arrived in Canada. She claimed refugee status but withdrew her claim on May 14, 2003. Her application for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA") was made on December 20, 2003.
[6] Before her PRRA application, she married a Canadian citizen and, in February 2004, he filed a spousal sponsorship application which remains outstanding.
[7] The Officer concluded that evidence of one unsuccessful attempt to secure police protection was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of state protection and also found, after an extensive review of the documents that state protection for Roma had improved in Hungary.
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
State Protection
[8] In cases in which the police are not the agents of persecution and in which the assailant can be identified, it is my view that one unsuccessful attempt to seek police assistance is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of state protection. This is particularly so when the abuse is ongoing.
Risk
[9] I have found nothing to suggest that the Officer's assessment of the objective documentary evidence was patently unreasonable. In my view, it was open to the Officer to consider that the Applicant was neither a convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
CONCLUSION
[10] For these reasons the application will be dismissed.
"Sandra J. Simpson"
JUDGE
Ottawa, Ontario
February 7, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-3511-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: KATALIN GYORFI
Applicant
- and -
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SIMPSON J.
APPEARANCES BY: Ms. Wennie Lee
For the Applicant
Ms. Aviva Basman
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: LEE & COMPANY
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
For the Applicant
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20050207
Docket: IMM-3511-04
BETWEEN:
KATALIN GYORFI
Applicant
- and -
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER