Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                                                                                                      Docket: IMM-2707-03

                                                                                                         Neutral citation: 2004 FC 1123

BETWEEN:

                                                             ZSOLT KURUCSAI

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                                        REASONS FOR ORDER

PHELAN J.

Introduction

[1]                Mr. Kurucsai, a citizen of Hungary and a person of Roma ethnicity, sought refugee and person in need of protection status on the grounds of fear of organized criminal activity in Hungary. A member of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Panel) denied the application because his story was not credible and because state protection exists for Mr. Kurucsai.


Background

[2]                Mr. Kurucsai's story is long, involved and confusing. In essence he states that members of organized crime have kidnapped, beaten, threatened, stabbed, and robbed him. He says that the police were unresponsive.

[3]                The Panel noted that Mr. Kurucsai's oral evidence was at odds with his PIF on some material facts. With respect to a pivotal event, his kidnapping, stabbing and robbery at a gas station, he gave directly contradictory evidence as to the reasons for being at the particular location.

[4]                The Panel found it difficult to believe that Mr. Kurucsai did not know how much money he had lost as a result of all of his various encounters with members of organized crime. The Panel did not believe that a business person, who could provide complete details of complex automobile transactions and who had been involved in a three year robbery investigation, did not know this type of basic information.

[5]                The Panel could not accept the story that, following Mr. Kurucsai's kidnapping and after he was stabbed in the stomach (an injury for which he did not seek medical attention), the kidnappers took him to a restaurant where they offered him a meal.


[6]                There are other incidents which the Panel could not accept as true including, the kidnappers giving Mr. Kurucsai a car and money; the kidnappers appearing in a court room and, in the presence of lawyers and police, making threats to him; or his excuse for not leaving Hungary earlier.

[7]                On the issue of state protection, the Panel held Mr. Kurucsai had not rebutted the presumption of state protection. Mr. Kurucsai had received police assistance; what he wanted was 24 hour protection. Despite Mr. Kurucsai's unreasonable expectations, documentary evidence and his own testimony showed that state protection, while not perfect, was available generally and was made available to him in particular.

Analysis

[8]                It is readily accepted that the standard of review in regard to credibility findings is patent unreasonableness.

[9]                The Panel's credibility findings were specifically linked to either inconsistencies in history or to implausibility based upon experience and common sense. Therefore, the findings fall within the Panel's mandate and expertise, to which a high degree of deference is owed.

[10]            There is nothing unreasonable, much less patently unreasonable, in the Panel's conclusions on credibility.


[11]            The same can be said about the Panel's treatment of documents produced by Mr. Kurucsai. The Panel found that his own allegations contradicted these documents and therefore it gave the documents little weight. This is a rational conclusion which this Court will not second-guess.

[12]            The issue of state protection was only raised. The Panel had reviewed the country condition reports, noted the portions which assisted the applicant but had concluded that, on balance, Hungary is able to handle the problems of organized crime and has committed the resources to do so. There is no basis for overturning these conclusions.

[13]            The Panel also addressed Mr. Kurucsai's own evidence which confirmed that police responded to his complaints, and that he had developed a good relationship with one of the detectives who was particularly helpful.

[14]            There is no basis for attacking the finding of state protection.

[15]            For these reasons this judicial review will be dismissed.

[16]            There is no question to be certified.

                                                                                                                         (s) "Michael L. Phelan"          

Judge


                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                    IMM-2707-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                    ZSOLT KURUCSAI v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:              Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                June 16, 2004

REASONS FOR ORDER:         The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan

DATED:                                       August 12, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Peter G. Ivanyi                                                                                         FOR THE APPLICANT

Ms. A. Leena Jaakkimainen                                                                        FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:

Rochon Genova


Toronto, Ontario                                                                                             FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario                                                                                          FOR THE RESPONDENT

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.