Date: 20010112
Docket: IMM-4881-99
BETWEEN:
EKATERINA RIADINSKAIA
EKATERINA RIADINSKAIA
Applicants
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Board (the "Board") dated September 1, 1999. The Board concluded that the applicants, mother and daughter, were not Convention refugees.
[2] The applicants are Russian citizens who claim refugee status on the basis of the daughter's nationality (she is half-Jewish). The crux of the applicants' claim is that around November 1997, the daughter, a paediatrician, started receiving anonymous vulgar letters, phone calls, and insults while at work. In March 1998, the daughter came to Canada with her father, who came to this country for business reasons. The mother joined them in July and spent about one month before returning to Russia. While in Canada, the applicants did not claim refugee status, but returned to Russia where they stayed several months. By October 1998, they were again receiving threatening letters, and they then decided to leave Russia and claim refugee status in Canada. The applicants left Russia on December 13, and arrived in Canada on the following day.
[3] The Board did not believe the applicants for the following reasons. First, the Board did not believe that the daughter, who at the time was training to be a doctor, would be insulted because of her Jewish name three years after she started her training. Second, the Board was of the view that the four "vulgar" letters adduced by the applicants were fabricated because "they are so exaggerated and excessive in language".
[4] The Board's other reason for denying refugee status is that the applicants never claimed refugee status while they were in Canada in the summer of 1998. Instead, the applicants returned to Russia where they stayed until December 1998. They decided to leave Russia in October 1998, when they received further threatening letters and suspected that they were being watched. The applicants' explanation for not claiming refugee status during the summer of 1998 is that they thought the threats would stop and that "they just did not believe that behind these letters could be a real material danger". Also, the mother testified that they had so much invested in their country that "it is very difficult to just drop everything". Moreover, the applicants did not leave immediately after the letters began appearing again in October 1998 because a family member, an uncle, was ill: "we were in such a panic that we would rather leave the country immediately, but then the priorities ... the accents had to change because my uncle was dying, and we went to visit him all this time". In the meantime, however, the applicants were preparing their visas and booking their flights.
[5] According to the applicants, the father/husband intended to depart with them on December 13, 1998, but because of his brother's death and the illness of another relative, he had to delay his flight to Canada. According to the applicants, the father/husband was scheduled to arrive in Canada on January 14, 1999. Unfortunately, the father never made it to Canada. He died on January 8, 1999. According to the applicants, the father/husband was found on a highway with a fractured skull. The applicants submit that the father/husband's death was racially motivated because of the prevailing anti-Semitism in Russia.
[6] The Board's analysis, in dismissing the applicants' claim, is relatively short, and I hereby reproduce it here in full:
| ANALYSIS |
| It is unrealistic to ask us to believe the story told by the claimants for the following reasons: |
| a) After a 2 [frac12]-year training course in a hospital, the daughter is suddenly told that she is a Jew and that there is no place for her since "Jews crowd the medical profession". This allegedly happened when suddenly a member of the medical team realized that maybe her family name was Jewish, thirty-six months after she had started training. It also should be pointed out that this was perfectly orchestrated with the arrival of the calls and letters; |
| b) While both claimants were here in Canada in the summer of 1998, they chose not to ask for refugee status because it was difficult to drop everything and they had so much invested in Russia. Had they really feared for their security and their life, we believe that it would have taken precedence over any other consideration; |
| c) The claimants also testified to the effect that in October 1998 they were in a panic. They were at that time holders of valid Canadian visas but preferred to stay in Russia until December 1998 because an uncle was ill, having suffered from cancer for five years. Again, you either fear for your life or you do not, and if you do, saving yourself should be the main priority; |
| d) The anonymous letters simply do not make any sense. They accuse the daughter of having, among other things, practiced a cesarean section (!) on her father and cutting out his testicles. This of course is nonsense. That letter (exhibit P-9) was allegedly received in January 1998 and a few months later, the father came to Canada inviting his daughter to join him. Exhibit P-10 also refers to the unspeakable treatment that the gentlemen suffered at the hands of his daughter and sated that she "badly messed up his life". That letter was received about one month before the father traveled [sic] to Canada, and there was nothing messed up about his life. |
| Exhibit P-12 is an extract from exhibit P-26 which was later produced in evidence. Apart for [sic] the language being filthy, it repeats that the father was castrated by the daughter. For our part, we repeat that we do not believe that these letters were received by the claimants or by the father. They are so exaggerated and excessive in language that we are of the opinion that they were fabricated. |
| The father, despite being Jewish, enjoyed a rewarding professional life and was general manager of a plant which was part of an international organization. They claimants' declaration to the effect that he suffered from anti-Semitism in his professional life is simply not founded or at least, is grossly exaggerated. There might have been occasional incidents of anti-Semitism on the part of certain individuals but the gentleman had, by Russian standards, a large apartment protected by steel doors, his own car plus a car for business purposes, a chauffeur who doubled as bodyguard. |
| The claimants also stressed the fact that their complaints to the police did not have any result. Exhibit P-27 adduced by counsel for the claimants is a document emanating from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs who states, at page 5: |
| It is possible that major or minor complaints about anti-Semitic discrimination filed by individual Jews are not investigated by individual policemen. This sometimes results from the fact that policemen and members of the Public Prosecutor themselves have anti-Semitic feelings. However, non-Jewish citizens are not always spared the rudeness of individual civil servants either. These complaints only get attention if nationally known persons, democratic parties and/or organizations support the complaints and seek publicity. It is uncertain whether or not the police will take action not only in the case of complaints related to discrimination and intimidation, but even in the case of a real criminal act (whether or not against Jews). In many cases, the crime or complaint is only recorded. A large number of criminal activities go unpunished. This is due to a considerable rise in the number of (organized) crimes for which the police was insufficiently prepared. |
| To summarize, we are unable to believe the claimants' story. It takes the daughter's colleagues 2 [frac12] years to realize that maybe she is Jewish; mother and daughter are both in Canada in the summer of 1998 and at that time are allegedly afraid but instead of asking for refugee status, decide to return to Russia because so much has been invested; in possession of Canadian visas, they wait, even though in a panic, for two months before leaving their country because an uncle is terminally ill and has been so for five years. Furthermore, the language of the anonymous letters makes no sense in view of the fact that soon after the so-called castration of the father by the daughter, he invited her to join him in Canada. |
| Attached to the daughter's PIF is a death certificate pertaining to her father. He passed away as a result of a brain contusion and skull fracture. This is not conclusive evidence as the wounds could have been caused in a number of ways; although a very serious incident, it was not mentioned in the PIF and cannot be automatically linked to anti-Semitism. |
| We have also seen that complaints to the police are not necessarily dealt with in a satisfactory way and why this is so. |
[7] In my view, points b) and c) of the analysis are sufficient to dispose of this judicial review application. After carefully reviewing the evidence, including the testimony of the applicants, I am of the view that it was open to the Board to find that if the applicants had really feared for their lives, protecting their lives would have been their greatest concern. In other words, the applicants' failure to claim refugee status in Canada in the summer of 1998 and their failure to leave Russia in October 1998 justified the Board concluding as it did. That conclusion, in my view, is fatal to the applicants' judicial review application. I therefore need not address the other issues raised by the applicants.
[8] For these reasons, this application for judicial review shall be dismissed.
Marc Nadon
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
January 12, 2001.