Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20020314

Docket: IMM-4743-00

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 286

Vancouver, British Columbia, Thursday the 14th day of March 2002

PRESENT:            THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DAWSON

BETWEEN:

                                          OLGA PETROVA

VADIM PETROV

                                                                                                  Applicants

                                                    - and -

   THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                               Respondent

                     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

DAWSON J.


[1]    Olga Petrova and her minor son Vadim claim a well-founded fear of persecution in Russia based upon Ms. Petrova's Jewish ethnicity. They bring this application for judicial review from the August 10, 2000 decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("CRDD)" which decided that they were not Convention refugees.

THE FACTS

[2]    In her Personal Information Form ("PIF") Ms. Petrova states that she first began receiving threatening phone calls and anti-Semitic literature in her mailbox in 1998 when she and her son moved to St. Petersburg. She states that her son was beaten by ultra-nationalist anti-Semites, and the authorities refused to investigate. In March of 1999 she was threatened at knife point by a uniformed anti-Semite who killed her dog when it tried to protect her. She was warned to leave Russia. In June of 1999 her apartment was broken into and set on fire. Ms. Petrova sought help from the General Procurator, but no response was received. In July of 1999, Ms. Petrova was told to look for another job because her employer had found out she was Jewish.

[3]    In the result, Ms. Petrova and her son left St. Petersburg on July 28, 1999 and made a refugee claim upon arrival in Canada.

THE DECISION OF THE CRDD

[4]    The decision of the CRDD is neatly summarized in the following paragraph from its reasons:


Neither of these claimants has any documents relating to themselves that would link them to Jewish ethnicity. The oral testimony is not persuasive to me that these claimants are Jewish, nor is there any tangible or persuasive evidence that they would be perceived to be Jewish based on any identity documents that they have.

[5]                 The CRDD concluded that because the fear of persecution was based solely upon Ms. Petrova's Jewish ethnicity that the failure to establish such ethnicity was fatal to the claims of the applicants.

THE ISSUES

[6]                 The applicants attack the CRDD's decision on three bases. First, the applicants argue that the CRDD erred in not determining the other issues identified by the CRDD at the outset of the hearing. It is said that the CRDD focussed on ethnicity and forgot the other issues. Second, the applicants argue that the CRDD erred in its assessment of the evidence. Specifically, it is said that the CRDD should have given weight to Ms. Petrova's recently re-issued birth certificate, and it should not have drawn an adverse inference from Vadim's testimony. Third, it is said that the CRDD failed to consider that Ms. Petrova was perceived by her persecutors to be Jewish.

ANALYSIS

[7]                 I have not been persuaded that the CRDD erred as alleged, or at all.


[8]                 As to the first alleged ground of error, that the CRDD erred by only considering ethnicity, the CRDD advised the applicants and their lawyer at the commencement of the hearing that the hearing would begin by focussing on the issue of ethnicity and then "move on from there, if we need to". The applicants were clearly advised of the importance of the issue of ethnicity.

[9]                 Once the CRDD properly concluded that the applicants had not established their identity it was not necessary for the CRDD to further consider in its reasons the evidence. The failure of the applicants to establish such identity made it impossible for them to establish that any fear of persecution was by reason of one of the five grounds recognized in the definition of Convention refugee.


[10]            A review of the transcript of the hearing and the documents tendered by the applicants satisfies me that the CRDD's findings of fact and weighing of the evidence were supported by, and rationally connected to, the evidence before the CRDD. There was evidence before the CRDD that in recent years authentic birth certificates attesting that a parent was Jewish can be obtained with ease, even if that fact is not true. The CRDD could reasonably draw an adverse inference from the testimony of a 15-year-old boy who had, less than two years prior to the hearing, attended a Jewish school for one year, taken one hour of religious instruction a week and learned the history of Israel and who, when asked what he was taught, was only able to advise that "Jews are coming from Christians" and "[m]any, many years ago Jesus came to the earth. At that time there was a lot of people who were coming and calling themselves that they were sent by God and when Jesus came, those who believed in Jesus they became Christians and those who didn't believe in him, they became Jewish", and who neither knew the term "bar mitzvah" nor recalled any student celebrating that occasion.

[11]            As for the final alleged error, that the CRDD failed to consider that Ms. Petrova was perceived to be Jewish, this was not the basis of her claim as advanced before the CRDD, nor did her counsel argue this issue before the CRDD. In his submission, counsel conceded the "onus on the claimant to satisfy the issues of credibility and ethnic identity". In any event, in the passage from the CRDD's reasons quoted above, the CRDD indicates that it did consider whether the applicants would be perceived to be Jewish.

[12]            The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed. Counsel posed no question for certification and no question is certified.

ORDER

[13]            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.    The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.    No question is certified.

                                                                      (Sgd.) "Eleanor R. Dawson"

                                                                                                           Judge      


                          FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                       TRIAL DIVISION

    NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                   IMM-4743-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:Olga Petrova et al. v. MCI

                                                         

PLACE OF HEARING:                                   Vancouver BC

DATE OF HEARING:                                     Application in Writing

REASONS FOR ORDER : DAWSON J.

DATED:                      March 14, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Peter J. Wuebbolt                                                 FOR APPLICANTS

Amina Riaz                                                            FOR RESPONDENTS

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Peter J. Wuebbolt                                                 FOR APPLICANTS

Deputy Attorney General of Canada                   FOR RESPONDENTS           

 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.