Date: 20050120
Docket: IMM-4274-04
Citation: 2005 FC 84
Montréal, Quebec, the 20th day of January 2005
Present: Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
CARLOS HUMBERTO MAZUERA MARULANDA
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division dated April 19, 2004. In that decision, the panel determined that the applicant did not qualify as a "Convention refugee" under section 96 or as a "person in need of protection" under section 97.
ISSUES
[2] The issues are the following:
1. Did the panel fail to consider the documentary evidence?
2. Did the panel commit a patently unreasonable error in determining that the applicant did not have a reasonable subjective fear?
[3] For the reasons that follow, I must answer these two questions in the negative.
[4] The applicant is a national of Colombia. He alleged that he had a reasonable fear of persecution for his life and a risk of cruel and unusual treatment and punishment because of his membership in a family persecuted by vigilance committees.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[5] The panel found it improbable that an individual who left his country over 13 years ago and who was not known to the Colombian population would be persecuted by a former mayor of a small town located hundreds of kilometres from Colombia's major cities. It also did not believe that the Colombia vigilance committees monitored and searched all corners of the country, including airports and border posts, to arrest and kill members of the Mazuera Marulanda family.
[6] In the opinion of the decision-maker, the claimant could relocate to one of Colombia's large cities and lead a normal life.
ANALYSIS
1. Did the panel fail to consider the documentary evidence?
[7] It is well settled that the panel is not required to refer in its reasons to the documentary evidence put before it. There is a presumption that the documentary evidence was taken into account (Florea v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (F.C.A.): QL). Further, in view of its function and expertise, the panel has the discretion to choose the evidence it regards as the most relevant (Tawfik v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 137 F.T.R. 43).
[8] A review of the decision and the hearing transcript indicates that the panel properly took the documentary evidence into account before rendering its decision. For example, the applicant alleged that he had lost a niece to the vigilance committees on account of the fact that his sister Ofir Mazuera Marulanda had publicly denounced the mayor, Hector Fabio Correa, for corruption in the course of his duties. The murder appears in the documentary evidence, but it does not indicate who was responsible for it.
[9] It is not sufficient for the applicant to show that there is evidence supporting the fact that certain members of his family were victims of persecution. He must show that there is a reasonable risk that this persecution would affect him, and that is not the case here.
2. Did the panel commit a patently unreasonable error in determining that the applicant did not have a reasonable subjective fear?
[10] In the case at bar, the panel considered that the applicant had not established that he had a reasonable subjective fear of persecution. The claimant left Colombia 13 years ago and was not present at the events which took place in 2000. When questioned by the panel, he admitted that no one would know him now if he were to return to his country. Further, he himself mentioned that the small town of Bugalagrande (the place where the applicant's family was persecuted) is located over 10 hours from the large cities of Bogota and Medellin and that Mayor Correa no longer holds his position. In view of these facts, it was entirely natural to conclude that the applicant could relocate to one of these large cities.
[11] He added that his U.S. work visa was expiring and he preferred to seek refuge in Canada, as all his family was here.
[12] These reasons in no way justify the granting of refugee status.
[13] In this connection, the comments of Hugessen J. in Urbanek v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] F.C.J. No. 556, are very relevant:
. . . The purpose of [Canada's refugee determination] system is to provide safe haven to those who genuinely need it, not to give a quick and convenient route to landed status for immigrants who cannot or will not obtain it in the usual way.
[14] After taking into account the evidence before the panel, the transcript of the applicant's testimony and the reasons for the decision, I feel that the panel did not make any patently unreasonable error.
[15] The parties declined to submit questions for certification. The case presents none.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that:
This application for judicial review is dismissed. No question will be certified.
|
|
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge |
Certified true translation
K. Harvey
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4274-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: CARLOS HUMBERTO MAZUERA MARULANDA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: January 19, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
DATED: January 20, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Claude Brodeur FOR THE APPLICANT
Michel Pépin FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Claude Brodeur FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec