Date: 19980604
Docket: IMM-3240-97
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THE 4th DAY OF JUNE 1998
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.E. DUBÉ
Between:
STEFAN SKRETYUK
KATALIN BALINT
Applicants
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application is dismissed.
Judge
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19980604
Docket: IMM-3240-97
Between:
STEFAN SKRETYUK
KATALIN BALINT
Applicants
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J.:
[1] The applicants are citizens of Romania who claimed refugee status alleging a fear of persecution because of their membership in the Hungarian Democratic Union of Romania (HDUR). The husband and wife allege that they were assaulted and that the Romanian police did not react to their complaints. In August 1995, they left their country for Hungary where they bought Hungarian passports. They later went to London where they lived for two months. They arrived in Canada on October 10, 1995, but did not claim refugee status until three weeks later.
[2] The panel found that the applicants" testimony was not credible based on the documentary evidence that people of Hungarian origin are in the majority where the claimants lived. There is very little conflict between them and the Romanians. Furthermore, the HDUR, the party to which the claimant alleges to belong, is a member of the Antonescu coalition government. The panel also found that the applicants" fear was not credible because they went to Hungary and England before finally seeking asylum as refugees, and because even after arriving in Canada, they delayed making their claim.
[3] There are no grounds for setting aside this decision by the Commission, which is perfectly consistent with the Immigration Act and the cases on the subject. First, it was entirely open to the panel to base its decision on the documentary evidence rather than the testimonial evidence.1 Second, the panel was required to take into consideration the claimants" conduct when they failed to claim refugee status in two countries before arriving in Canada. A claimant travelling through a country that is a signatory to the Convention must claim refugee status as soon as possible, or the claim may not be considered serious.2
[4] This application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed. There is no serious question of general importance to certify.
O T T A W A, Ontario
June 4, 1998
Judge
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-3240-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: STEFAN SKRETYUK ET AL. v. MCI |
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 22, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER BY DUBÉ J.
DATED: JUNE 4, 1998
APPEARANCES:
| ALAIN JOFFE FOR THE APPLICANTS |
CAROLINE DOYON FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| ALAIN JOFFE FOR THE APPLICANTS |
CAROLINE DOYON
George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________1 Kanagaratnam v. Canada, 28 Imm. L.R. (2d) 44; Ting Yu Zhou v. M.E.I., A-492-91, July 18, 1994, Linden J.A.; Yioubov Priadkina and Maria Priadkina v. M.C.I., IMM-2034-96, December 16, 1997, Nadon J.; Pedro Aleksei MARCHANT ANDRADE, Mereya SANTOS-LEIVA v. M.C.I., IMM-2361-96, May 5, 1997, Noël J.; and Peet v. Canada (Attorney General) (1995), 91 F.T.R. 284.
2 Salihou Bello v. M.C.I., IMM-1771-96, April 11, 1997, Pinard J.; Ilie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 88 F.T.R. 220; Masoud Safakhoo et al. v. M.C.I., IMM-455-96, April 11, 1997, Pinard J.; and Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 112 F.T.R. 9.