Date: 20050628
Docket: IMM-6017-04
Citation: 2005 FC 913
Toronto, Ontario, June 28th, 2005
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein
BETWEEN:
HERMISE DIANA ANECLA PETERS
( a.k.a HERMISE DIANA A PETERS)
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
( Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification)
[1] The Applicant, a citizen of St. Vincent fled to Canada in March 2000 and in 2003 sought refugee protection. She claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution due to her membership in a particular social group, woman abused by their partners.
[2] She claims to be persecuted by her former partner who repeatedly beat her and abused her. She sought police protection, but was ignored.
[3] The Board rejected her claim finding;
a. that the Applicant took three years to claim refugee status and although delay is not a decisive factor, it is reasonable to expect someone with a well-founded fear of persecution would seek refugee status without delay, and
b. after an extensive analysis of documentation that the government of St. Vincent is addressing the problem of domestic violence through legislation and awareness and an increasing number of women are coming forward with their complaints of violence.
[4] As this judicial review relates mainly to the issue of state protection, the applicable standard of review is reasonableness simpliciter (see Chaves v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 193).
[5] The Applicant, who appeared in person, made two points:
a. she did not apply for refugee protection beforehand as she was not aware that such a procedure existed, and
b. she was unaware of any state protection for battered woman in St. Vincent. All her experience was with the police who proved unwilling to help.
[6] The Board is entitled to consider delay in claiming refugee status as a factor in assessing the credibility of a claim. The Applicant's explanation is just not credible. Being in Canada and associating with other immigrants would certainly have apprised her of the refugee process.
[7] Unless there is a complete breakdown of the state apparatus, the state is presumed to be able to protect its citizens. International protection is that it only comes into play when there is not alternative for the claimant. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca (1992), 18 IMM. L.R. (2d) 130 .
[8] The onus was on the Applicant to produce clear and convincing evidence of the state's inability to protect its citizens and she did not do so. It is insufficient for the Applicant to merely show that the St. Vincent government cannot always protect its citizens in a particular situation.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed.
"K. von Finckenstein"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-6017-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: HERMES DIANA ANECLA PETERS (aka HERMISE
DIANA A. PETERS)
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 28, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: VON FINKENSTEIN, J.
APPEARANCES BY:
Hermise Peters FOR THE APPLICANT
Sharon Stuart Guthrie FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Hermise Peters
Toronto, ON FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT