Date: 20040722
Docket: IMM-5088-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1026
Ottawa, Ontario, this 22nd day of July, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
GYULA LAJOS NAGY
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Gyula Lajos Nagy came to Canada from his native Hungary in 2001. He claims to fear an organized crime group in Hungary and seeks refugee protection here. A three-member panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed his claim, finding that Mr. Nagy had failed to present credible evidence in support of it. Mr. Nagy argues that the Board failed to consider the whole of the evidence and made serious errors of fact. He asks me to order a new hearing.
[2] Mr. Nagy represented himself before me with the aid of an interpreter. He made brief submissions on one issue: the negative inference that the Board drew from the absence of medical evidence supporting Mr. Nagy's claim. Otherwise, Mr. Nagy relied on the written submissions that had been filed on his behalf. Likewise, counsel for the respondent relied primarily on his written submissions.
[3] I have considered Mr. Nagy's submissions carefully. However, I can find no basis for overturning the Board's decision. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
[4] Did the Board err in its analysis of the evidence?
II. Analysis
[5] I can overturn the Board's decision only if I find that it was patently unreasonable, in the sense that it was completely unsupported by the evidence.
[6] Mr. Nagy was a businessman. He says that he was targeted by members of the local Mafia who demanded that he pay them protection money. When he refused, he was beaten and threatened. He says he did not seek medical attention because he feared that doctors would notify police. However, he did complain to police directly some months later, but they did nothing. When his attackers found out about the police report, they beat him, threatened him again and increased the sums they had been demanding. He could no longer afford to pay them, so he left for Canada.
[7] The Board found that Mr. Nagy's testimony was inconsistent and that his account of events was implausible. In particular, the Board did not accept Mr. Nagy's testimony about not seeking medical attention. He said that he feared that doctors would report his injuries to police,which would put him in even greater danger. However, at a later point he made written complaints to police himself. In my view, it was open to the Board to draw an adverse inference from Mr. Nagy's testimony on this issue. I also note that in Mr. Nagy's written narrative he says that he "did not go to the doctor or hospital, though to this day I am not sure why not, besides being in terror and fear".
[8] The Board was also troubled that Mr. Nagy could not produce copies of his written complaints to police. He explained that he did not want to have them sent to Canada because his assailants would then be able to track him down here. The Board did not accept that explanation because the Mafia had trouble finding him even in Hungary. It was unlikely they would find him here. Again, I cannot conclude that the Board's concern was unwarranted.
[9] The Board asked Mr. Nagy why his wife and son did not come to Canada with him. Mr. Nagy said that his wife was living with her parents and awaiting an inheritance from her uncle. His son was attending university. The Board wondered why Mr. Nagy's wife and son appeared not to be in any ongoing danger in Hungary given his testimony that his wife had been attacked and threatened in order to force her to disclose his whereabouts. The Board felt this inconsistency harmed Mr. Nagy's credibility. I cannot disagree with the Board's finding.
[10] Finally, the Board concluded that Mr. Nagy had not shown that Hungary was incapable of protecting him from his alleged tormentors. He said that the police did not follow up on his complaints but, as mentioned, the Board doubted whether he had ever approached the police. Accordingly, Mr. Nagy had not proved an absence of state protection.
[11] Based on the evidence before the Board, I cannot conclude that its conclusions were patently unreasonable. 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. This application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
F.C.J.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5088-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: GYULA LAJOS NAGY v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO
DATE OF HEARING: Tuesday July 20, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: Thursday, July 22, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Self Represented FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Martin Anderson FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Self Represented FOR THEAPPLICANT
MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT