PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Canip Kustas used to be a folk-dance instructor in Turkey. In April 2002, he travelled to the United States with a dance troupe for a 12-day festival, but did not return to Turkey when it was over. He did not leave the United States until November 2003, when he arrived in Canada and sought refugee protection here.
[2] Mr. Kustas says that he fears persecution in Turkey because of his Kurdish ethnicity and his Alevi religious beliefs. However, a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed his claim for refugee protection because of a lack of credible and trustworthy evidence. Mr. Kustas argues that the Board treated him unfairly and wrongly discounted the evidence supporting his claim. He asks me to order a new hearing.
[3] I can find no error on the Board's part that would justify a new hearing. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
1. Did the Board err by making credibility findings against Mr. Kustas on the basis of an inaccurate interpretation of his testimony?
2. Were the Board's findings supported by the evidence?
II. Analysis
A. Did the Board err by making credibility findings against Mr. Kustas on the basis of an inaccurate interpretation of his testimony?
[4] Throughout the hearing before the Board, questions were raised about the accuracy of the interpretation of Mr. Kustas' testimony on several occasions. However, at no time was a clear objection made by counsel for Mr. Kustas, who spoke Turkish himself. Indeed, he stated during the hearing that the interpretation was not a general problem; he objected to certain words and phrases, not the whole of the interpretation. At a later point, after counsel reiterated his concern, the Board replaced the interpreter on its own, out of caution.
[5] I can see no unfairness in the Board's treatment of Mr. Kustas' evidence. Where an interpretation is found generally to be unsatisfactory, the Board should not rely on it to make findings against a refugee claimant: Khosravi-Tabrizi v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 265 (QL). However, the problems here were not that severe. Indeed, Mr. Kustas does not point to any specific findings of the Board that were based on faulty interpretation.
B. Were the Board's findings supported by the evidence?
[6] I can overturn the Board's findings of fact only if I conclude that they were unsupported by the evidence.
[7] Mr. Kustas maintained that he was employed from 1990 to 1999 at the Turkish Ministry of Education as a dance teacher. He says that, for the most part, he taught Kurdish dances. He was fired after participating in a May Day demonstration in 1999. Thereafter, he continued to teach dance part-time at a centre connected to the Ministry of Education. The Board doubted that Mr. Kustas had been permitted to teach Kurdish dancing, especially after he was fired in 1999. It cited documentary evidence showing that the education system in Turkey is strictly secular. The Kurdish language and culture are banned from the school system, and those who promote it are punished. In addition, the Board concluded from the evidence that Mr. Kustas was unlikely to be persecuted because of his Alevi religion.
[8] Mr. Kustas submits that the Board ignored evidence that he dressed his dancers in Kurdish colours, was born in a Kurdish district, and that Turkish authorities would have regarded him as having unacceptable political views, even though he was not particularly politically active. In fact, Mr. Kustas' testimony about which colours were distinctively Kurdish was vague. Further, the Board did take account of Mr. Kustas' birthplace in eastern Turkey and considered whether the authorities might consider him to be of interest because of his participation, along with 4,000 others, at a demonstration.
[9] In my view, the Board's findings were supported by the evidence. Therefore, I see no basis for overturning its conclusions.
[10] Mr. Kustas also argues that the Board erred in discounting the evidentiary value of a notice and a summons from the Turkish police that were allegedly delivered to his family's home in 2004, long after he had left Turkey. Mr. Kustas surmised that he may have been wanted by police because of his failure to return to Turkey after his visit to the United States.
[11] The Board was not satisfied that these documents were genuine. They were partly typewritten and partly hand-written, and contained no security features. Mr. Kustas argues that the Board had no basis in the evidence to doubt the authenticity of these documents and, therefore, should have presumed that they were genuine.
[12] I agree that the Board should not lightly discredit foreign documents in the absence of evidence showing what those documents typically look like. However, in the circumstances of this case, the Board's treatment of this documentary evidence did not figure prominently in its overall conclusions. It had already found that Mr. Kustas was not persecuted because of his Kurdish background or his Alevi religion. Nor was he of interest to authorities because of any political activity. Further, the Board noted that even if the notice and summons were genuine, there was no evidence that there were any consequences flowing from Mr. Kustas' failure to appear as instructed. There was no evidence of any follow-up on the part of the police. Therefore, it was unlikely that he would be sought by police on his return.
[13] Accordingly, I have no basis on which to overturn the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1576-05
STYLEOF CAUSE: CANIP KUSTAS v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: January 10, 2006
APPEARANCES:
| Alp Debrelli |
|
| David Joseph
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| ALP DEBRELI Toronto, ON |
|
| JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, ON
|