Date: 20041014
Docket: IMM-3191-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1420
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SNIDER
BETWEEN:
RONNIE MANLAPAZ
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
SNIDER J.
[1] The Applicant, Ronnie Santos Manlapaz, is a citizen of the Philippines who arrived in Canada on September 20, 2002. He alleges a fear of returning to the Philippines because he is a member of a well-known and wealthy family being targeted by the New People's Army (the "NPA").
[2] In its decision dated March 17, 2004, a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Protection Division) ("the Board") found that:
· there is no reasonable possibility that the Applicant faces a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; and
· in the alternative, he has a viable internal flight alternative ("IFA") in Manila.
[3] The Applicant seeks judicial review of this decision.
Issues
[4] The Applicant raises the following issue:
1. Whether the Board erred by not considering the totality of the evidence before it or erred in its assessment of the evidence.
Analysis
[5] The appropriate standard of review is one of patent unreasonableness. As a result, the Board's findings of fact can be overturned if those findings are not supported by the evidence or made capriciously or perversely (Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 551 (C.A.) (QL); Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; [1998] S.C.J. No. 46).
[6] The Board's key findings with respect to each of its conclusions were as follows:
· the letters written by the Applicant's family and the testimony given by his sister in support of his application reflected their strong bias and vested interest in the outcome of the claim and were therefore given little or no weight;
· the Applicant has no political affiliation, no political profile, has never served in the military and does not have the profile that would bring him to the attention of the NPA;
· the initial interview with the immigration officer at the Port of Entry ("POE") indicated strong economic reasons for the Applicant making an application and failed to reveal any basis for a well-founded fear;
· the Board made a negative inference regarding credibility based on the Applicant's visible discomfort during his testimony where he did not respond in a forthright manner and had to search for answers; and
· while the claimant attended university in Manila from 1993 to 2002, he experienced no problems and could safely relocate there.
[7] The Applicant raises two concerns with the Board's findings. Firstly, the Applicant disputes the Board's rejection of the corroborating evidence from the Applicant's family members. Secondly, the Applicant objects to the Board's IFA finding. For the reasons that follow, I do not accept either of these submissions.
Rejection of Family's evidence
[8] The letters sent by the family in support of the Applicant's claim were given little or no weight. The Applicant submits that the Board fails to state whether the reasons for the family wanting to leave the Philippines were accepted and that this would make a difference as to the weight that should be given the letters.
[9] The reasons given by the Board make various statements regarding the conditions in the Philippines. In particular, the Board notes: the brothers are training to be caregivers so they can come to Canada; the parents and another brother have not left yet because they are winding up business matters; and the claimant in the interview with the immigration officer noted that unemployment was high in the Philippines.
[10] While the Board did not state, in the same paragraph as the reference to the letters, what it accepts about the conditions in the Philippines, the reasons make it clear that the Board feels the Applicant and his family are making the move to Canada for economic reasons and not because of a fear of harm. In effect, the Board accepts the evidence from and about the Applicant's family as corroboration of their economic motives. The fact that the brothers are taking the time to re-train and the rest of the family is wrapping up the family business are indications, not of a need to flee danger, but rather of a decision to change residence for economic reasons.
[11] The testimony of the Applicant's sister is similarly situated to the other family members and it was open to the Board to assign little weight to it.
[12] It is also noteworthy that the Board's conclusion did not rest solely on a rejection of the family's supporting evidence. In addition, the Board addressed its mind to the failure to describe his claim at the POE, his lack of profile as a target for the NPA and his demeanour throughout the hearing. Overall, I am not persuaded that the decision of the Board was patently unreasonable. The evidence cited by the Board is fully able to support the conclusion that the Applicant would not be in danger should he return to the Philippines.
Internal Flight Alternative
[13] The Board held that Manila was a safe IFA for the Applicant. The burden lies on the Applicant to show on a balance of probabilities that there is no IFA open to him (Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589; [1993] F.C.J. No. 1172 (C.A.) (QL)). The Board found that the Applicant was free to chose his place of residence and employment in the Philippines and so would be free to live in Manila should he choose to. While the Board found that there were indications of guerilla activity in the Philippines, there was no such activity in Manila. Further, where the NPA has committed human rights violations in the past, they targeted political figures, police, security, military, tourists, judges and alleged criminals.
[14] In its reasons, the Board notes that the Applicant is an educated, young man of 27 years, in good health. The Board describes him as "capable, flexible and resourceful". During the hearing, the Applicant's response to a question about the potential for relocation to Manila was that he wished he could move, but "it's hard to move and hard to sell your house". The Board concluded that these concerns do not pass the "unreasonably harsh" threshold of the test for an IFA and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable for the Applicant to relocate. I agree. The Applicant's own testimony failed to demonstrate that he could not reasonably relocate to Manila.
[15] The Applicant referred me to one newspaper article which he argues is evidence that the NPA is active in the area. However, I note that this article does not directly state that Manila is subject to NPA activity. Failure to refer to this one article is not, in the circumstances of this case, an error.
[16] Having reviewed the documentary evidence contained in the record, I am satisfied that the Board's conclusion that the Applicant had an IFA in Manila was reasonably open to it.
Conclusion
[17] For these reasons, the application will be dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification. None will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed; and
2. No question is certified.
"Judith A. Snider"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3191-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: RONNIE MANLAPAZ v. THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: October 12, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
DATED: October 14, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Simon K. Yu FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Robert Drummond FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Barrister & Solicitor FOR APPLICANT
Edmonton, Alberta
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada