Date: 19980522
Docket: IMM-2313-97
BETWEEN:
ALI ERENOGLU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
GIBSON, J.
[1] These reasons arise out of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "CRDD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board wherein the CRDD determined the applicant not to be a Convention refugee within the meaning assigned to that term by subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act1. The decision is dated the 6th of May, 1997.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Turkey. His nationality is Kurdish and his religion is Alevi. He was born and brought up in a village in the south eastern part of Turkey, in a predominantly Kurdish area. The narrative portion of his Personal Information Form, which the CRDD annexed to its reasons for decision, clearly documents the persecution that he suffered in that part of Turkey at the hands of government security forces.
[3] In July of 1994, he fled his home community and settled in Istanbul. While there, he witnessed the burning down of an Alevi restaurant and read about Kurdish businesses being destroyed. In September of 1994, he contacted his father with regard to the possibility of returning to his village. His father advised against return. The applicant did not feel safe in Istanbul. He took extreme caution to avoid the police. He determined that, since he could not return to his village, he would flee his country. In April of 1996, with the aid of a smuggler, he left Turkey.
[4] In its reasons for decision, the CRDD implicitly acknowledged that the applicant had a well founded fear of persecution if required to return to the south-east of Turkey. It therefore focussed on whether or not an Internal Flight Alternative ("IFA") to Istanbul was reasonably available to the applicant. It wrote:
| The central issue in this claim is whether or not the claimant has available to him an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) to Istanbul. |
| In Rasaratnam, the Federal Court ruled that |
| ... since by definition a Convention refugee must be a refugee from a country, not from some subdivision or region of a country, a claimant cannot be a Convention refugee is there is an IFA. |
| The test for determining the validity of an IFA is a two fold one: |
| ... if there is a safe haven for claimants in their own country, where they would be free of persecution, they are expected to avail themselves of it unless they can show it is objectively unreasonable for them to do so.2 |
[5] The CRDD cited reasonably extensively from the documentary evidence before it. It concluded:
| When the foregoing is considered in its entirety, it is relatively easy to come to the conclusion that an Alevi Kurd in Istanbul faces a serious possibility of discrimination or harassment, particularly a rural one with no experience of urban life. However, it is difficult to conclude that an Alevi Kurd faces a serious possibility of persecution in Istanbul. |
It went on to cite from a particular article that acknowledged that Kurdish Alevis had been subjected to "pre-planned" instances of organized political violence in Istanbul. On this evidence, it commented:
| The evidence before us, however, fails to indicate that this is happening in Istanbul to such an extent that we could find the claimant before us to face a serious possibility of persecution. |
[6] The CRDD then examined Istanbul as an IFA in the context of the particular circumstances of the claimant and placed special emphasis on the fact that he had lived there for "approximately two years" without experiencing persecution. It commented:
| This, in our opinion, is a particular circumstance of the claimant that supports the objective reasonableness of the IFA. |
[7] The CRDD specifically examined and rejected, on the facts of this matter, the proposition that no IFA could even be considered in cases where the government has been the agent of persecution in the past, continues to be the agent of fear of persecution, and is in control of all of the nation's territory.
[8] On the basis of its analysis, the CRDD rejected the applicant's claim to Convention refugee status on the basis that he had open to him an IFA to Istanbul.
[9] While I might not have reached the same conclusion on the facts of this matter as did the CRDD, I find no reviewable error in the analysis conducted by it. No procedural or jurisdictional error was argued before me. In the result, this application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[10] Counsel for the applicant urged certification of a question to the following effect:
| Where, as on the facts of this matter, the agent of past persecution and feared future persecution is in control of all of the territory of the nation to which an applicant for Convention refugee status is to be returned, can an Internal Flight Alternative exists for the applicant? |
[11] Counsel for the respondent urged that no question should be certified. I am in agreement with the position of counsel for the respondent. No question will be certified. I am satisfied that the question proposed by counsel for the applicant is effectively dealt with in the extensive jurisprudence from the Federal Court of Appeal and this Court on the issue of Internal Flight Alternative.
"Frederick E. Gibson"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
May 22, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-2313-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ALI ERENOGLU |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 21, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: GIBSON, J.
DATED: MAY 22, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Steven M. Beiles
For the Applicant
Ms. Andrea M. Horton
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
M. Steven Beiles
Barrister & Solicitor
100 Adelaide Street West
Suite 1300
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 1S3
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980522
Docket: IMM-2313-97
Between:
| ALI ERENOGLU |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
2 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (F.C.A.) and Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A.)