Date: 20011210
Docket: IMM-214-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1355
BETWEEN:
NADIA LAAZER PETROS
KEVIN PETROS
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated December 22, 2000, wherein the Board determined that the applicant was not a Convention Refugee.
[2] The issue is whether the Board erred in finding the applicant did not have a subjective fear.
[3] The applicant claimed Convention Refugee status because of her perceived political opinion, religion and status as a single mother. The applicant did not present any direct evidence with respect to her status as a single mother and any threats resulting therefrom. She also presented no evidence with respect to her allegation that she did not have freedom to practice her Christian religion openly.
[4] The applicant stated she had gone to church in Arbil regularly every week, but also stated that she could not practice her religion freely. She did not go to church in Sulaimaniya but that was because she did not know of any churches in the town. She presented no evidence with respect to being threatened because of her religious faith. The Board's findings with respect to religion were open to it on the evidence before it.
[5] The applicant claims that she was persecuted as a result of her husband having been employed by a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). This was a rival organization to the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) which took over Arbil in 1996. She also alleged that two members of the PUK took shelter with the applicant and her husband to seek refuge from the KDP and the Iraqi Government, and that this was the start of their problems.
[6] The applicant claimed that after several incidents of abuse and death threats from the KDP between 1996 and 1997, her husband fled from Arbil to Sulaimaniya, which was a stronghold of the PUK. However the KDP continued to threaten the applicant with arrest and detention if she did not disclose information about the husband. She was allegedly detained and questioned by the KDP several times. In the spring of 1998 she went to Sulaimaniya to visit her husband. She then left to rejoin her family in Arbil. Because of this visit, her problems with the KDP continued and at the end of the year they compelled her to go back to Sulaimaniya and obtain information about her husband and the PUK. She remained there until February 1999. She has separated from her husband and fled to Canada.
[7] The Board found several implausibilities in the applicant's testimony. They did not believe that a person such as her husband, who was not politically active himself, but purportedly attained a political profile due to his status as a cook to a PUK member, would be of interest to the KDP. Further, if they were interested in him, they would not have released him after arresting him several times between 1996 and 1997. Moreover, if they really wanted to know where her husband was and get information from him, they could have followed the applicant during her visits to her husband. The Board found:
... KDP's failure to do so during a prolonged period demonstrates that neither the claimant, nor her husband, was of any interest to the KDP.
The Board also stated that:
Documents indicate that there has been some violence directed at Assyrians in Arbil in December 1998, and that the generalized intimidation and harassment of the Assyrians have been attributed to both the KDP and the PUK.
The Board concluded by finding:
Under the circumstances, the panel finds that if indeed she did not want to live in Arbil due to alleged harassment from the KDP, it is reasonable to expect that she could live in Sulaimaniya, an area she had been familiar with for over 10 years. The documentary evidence quoted above clearly illustrates that her fear in Sulaimaniya is not well-founded.
[8] I would be remiss if I did not point out that the documentary evidence indicates that there are problems for PUK sympathizers and she would probably be considered as a PUK sympathizer if she returned to Arbil. There is evidence of ethnic cleansing of Christians by the Kurdish groups in northern Iraq but these matters are matters for consideration under the humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It is not for the Board or this Court to make decisions on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
[9] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"W.P. McKeown"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 10, 2001
Date: 20011210
Docket: IMM-214-01
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2001
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE McKEOWN
BETWEEN:
NADIA LAAZER PETROS
KEVIN PETROS
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"W.P. McKeown"
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-214-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Nadia Laazer Petros and other v. M.C.I.
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 29, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE McKEOWN
DATED: December 10, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Ghina Al-Sewaidi FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. Jamie Todd FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Ms. Ghina Al-Sewaidi FOR THE APPLICANTS Toronto, Ontario
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada