Date: 20010508
Docket: IMM-3103-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 445
BETWEEN:
ATANAS ATANASSOV
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] The applicant seeks to set aside a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated May 16, 2000 whereby the Board dismissed his claim for refugee status in Canada.
[2] The applicant, born on May 10, 1971, is a citizen of Bulgaria. He arrived in Canada on August 31, 1999, and sought refugee status. He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his membership in a particular social group, namely homosexuals.
[3] The Board concluded that the applicant had not met his burden of proof in respect of both subjective and objective fear of persecution. Firstly, the Board had serious doubts regarding the applicant's credibility and in particular with respect to attacks made against him by local skinheads. Secondly, the Board held against the applicant the fact that he did not mention in his Personal Information Form ("PIF") that there was collusion between the skinheads and the police. The Board could not accept as truthful the applicant's testimony regarding collusion because if so, that information, in the Board's view, would have been related by the applicant in his PIF. Finally, the Board concluded, relying on the documentary evidence, that there was no likelihood that the applicant would be persecuted should he return to Bulgaria.
[4] With respect to the applicant's objective fear, the Board concluded that although homosexuals were, from time to time, subject to mistreatment and harassment by the police, this did not, in the Board's view, constitute persecution since the harassment and mistreatment « ne se produisent pas de manière systématique » . In my view, the Board's conclusion is not unreasonable. Although the Board's conclusion was not the only one open to it, in light of the evidence and in particular in light of the documentary evidence, the fact remains that there was evidence to support the Board's conclusion. Consequently, the applicant's attack on this ground is denied.
[5] With respect to the Board's conclusion that the applicant ought to have mentioned in his PIF that the skinheads and the police were colluding, I do not see on what basis I could intervene. When asked (page 45 of transcript, page 434 of the Tribunal's record) why he did not mention this fact in his PIF, the applicant stated that he had not written all of the particulars of his story. It is clear from the transcript that the applicant was not really interested in answering the question. In these circumstances, the Board's conclusion that the omission affected the applicant's credibility cannot, in my view, be seriously challenged.
[6] Also, the Board was not satisfied with the applicant's explanation as to why the skinheads would be interested in him since there were no outward signs of his homosexuality. I agree with Mr. Joffe, counsel for the applicant, that the Board's reasoning on this issue is not of the highest order. Notwithstanding the Board's lack of penmanship on this issue, I understand from their decision that the Board, on the evidence before them, could not understand why the skinheads would have taken an interest in the applicant. Had this been the only ground for the Board's conclusion, I would, in all likelihood, have set this decision aside. However, in view of the Board's other conclusions which, in my view, are not unreasonable, I will not intervene.
[7] Consequently, this application for judicial review shall be dismissed.
[8] A final point. I note in reading the transcript that the "refugee hearing officer" is described as being a "refugee claim officer". In French, the « agent d'audience » is described as being a « agent chargé de la revendication » . The expressions « agents d'audience » and "refugee hearing officers" are the expressions which appear in paragraph 64.(3) and section 68.1 of the Immigration Act. Why the expressions "refugee claim officer" and « agent chargé de revendication » have made their way into the refugee process, I cannot say. However, it appears to me preferable that the « agents d'audience » and "refugee hearing officers" be described in the transcripts and other documents as « agents d'audience » and "refugee hearing officers". That is, according to the Immigration Act, what these people are and they should be so described.
Marc Nadon
Judge
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 8, 2001