Date: 20001214
Docket: IMM-6269-99
BETWEEN:
LASZLO POHLOT, LASZLONE POHLOT,
TIBOR CSOKA and EMILIA CSOKA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Docket: IMM-6111-99
BETWEEN:
FERENC VASS and PALMA LAKATOS
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] These are applications for judicial review of the Immigration and Refugee Board's decisions rendered on November 20, 1999 in Court File No. IMM-6111-99 and on November 25, 1999 in Court File No. IMM--6269-99. These applications were heard together on December 6, 2000, and these reasons are applicable to both.
FACTS
Laszlo Pohlot, laszlone Pohlot, Tibor Csoka and Emilia Csoka v.
M.C.I. - IMM-6269-99
[2] The applicants are claiming Convention refugee status on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution by reasons of their membership in the Romani ethnic group.
[3] Laszlo Pohlot and Laslone Pohlot are husband and wife. Tibor Csoka is the son of Laszlone Pohlot and stepson of Laszlo Pohlot. Beata Jonas is the common-law wife of Tibor Csoka and mother of the minor claimant, Emilia Csoka.
[4] Laszlo Pohlot indicated in his PIF that he was mocked by other children while at school and that he was beaten by his teacher after he had slapped a girl in the face because she had called him a dirty gypsy. His mother wanted to press charges against the teacher but the principal persuaded her not to do it. His children, Tibor and Renata also experienced difficulties when at school. His request to transfer Tibor to another school was denied. Tibor finished his elementary education by attending evening classes.
[5] He complained that he was not allowed to enter a place of entertainment. When serving in the army, he was assigned to a work unit comprising only Roma. The Roma soldiers, unlike Hungarian soldiers, were granted few home visits.
[6] In 1990, Laszlo Pohlot, who is a plumber by profession, lost his job. After being unemployed for one year, he started to sell second-hand clothing on the market, barely managing to support his family.
[7] In 1994, his stepson Janos, then 17 years of age, was arrested by the police and held for four hours. While detained he was beaten. Before his release, he had to sign a paper stating that he had not been mistreated. Janos, who looked older for his age, was sometimes detained by the police who expected him to have an identity card which was not required at his age.
[8] In 1996, Laszlo Pohlot was attacked by a group of more than ten skinheads as he was getting out of his car, in front of his apartment building in Budapest. He was hit on the head and kicked. The skinheads left when other people came to help him. The police came and took information from the applicant who told them that he wanted to press charges. On the following day, the skinheads returned and broke the windows of his car, as well as the windows of his ground-floor apartment. The police arrived, verified the damages and told Laszlo Pohlot that they were going to add the information to the previous day's report.
[9] A few months after this incident, Laszlo Pohlot sold his apartment and bought a house with a large lot in Satoraljaujheli. He planed to raise some farm animals. He had to pay a higher price for the house and later, was not allowed to keep pigs and chicken because his neighbours complained to the authorities. According to the applicant, other people in the area kept animals and had no problems. He had problems with his next-door neighbour, a medical doctor, whose office door opened on the applicants' property. The neighbour complained to the municipality that Laszlo Pohlot was raising pigs and that the three dogs on the applicant's property barked too much and scared his clients. A few weeks later, the dogs died. The applicants believe that the dogs were poisoned.
[10] In 1996, when the applicants had a Christmas family reunion in their home, the police came and imposed a fine for being too noisy. Laszlo Pohlot was picked up by the police because the fine was not paid in time.
[11] The medical doctor, who was Laszlo Pohlot's neighbour, refused to assist his wife in 1997, when she suffered from migraine and other ailments. The doctor told them to go to the hospital.
[12] When Laszlo Pohlot attempted to subdivide his property and build a house for his sister at the back of his property, the neighbours did not agree with the proposed changes. He needed their consent to build a second house.
[13] Laszlo Pohlot stated in his oral testimony, that he fears being persecuted by the skinheads and by the police. He fears that he would not be accepted by the Hungarian population and that he would be displaced, should he return after spending a year and a half in Canada. He no longer has a house or an apartment in Hungary. He also fears that the police would not protect him.
[14] Laszlone Pohlot relied mostly on the evidence provided by her husband. She testified that her son was beaten up by the police and that when she took him to a doctor for stitches, the doctor advised her not to make a complaint because she would not get satisfaction. Since her arrival in Canada, she spoke on the telephone with her son who told her that other gypsies were beaten up during a fight in a parking lot. She approached her cousin, who is the representative of a Romani organization in Satoraljaujheli, but only in relation to her husband's attempt to build a second house on their lot.
[15] Tibor Csoka lived with his mother and stepfather before coming to Canada. He stated that his education was not as good as it could have been because he attended night school, which offered fewer trade courses.
[16] In the summer of 1993, he and a friend were attacked by four skinheads. He was beaten and kicked; his nose was broken and two of his front teeth were knocked out. He did not go to the police because the attackers had run away when other people arrived.
[17] His daughter did not have particular problems in kindergarten for over a year, as no one knew that they were gypsies. Later on, however, the attitude of the teacher and students changed; she was mocked and isolated.
[18] Before coming to Canada, Tibor Csoka and his wife rented an apartment from a gentleman who did not want to pay taxes and, for this reason, wanted to keep the arrangement secret. The superintendent threatened to call the police, allegedly because the claimants were Roma.
[19] He fears that, should he return to Hungary, he and his family would be subjected to harassment. He also fears that he would not be able to provide a safe environment for his family. He testified that he fears being persecuted by the skinheads, by certain Hungarians who do not accept the Roma, and by the police. He fears the police because his younger brother was abused by them. He was detained by the police for eight hours about eleven years ago.
[20] Beata Jonas stated in her PIF that a policeman had tried to rape her when she was in her first year of high school. The incident happened at the house of a classmate. She reported the incident to her parents and to her grandfather, who was a policeman. A complaint was filed, but there was no result.
[21] In the summer of 1994, she applied for an apartment for herself and her husband. In the four years they lived in Budapest, they received no answer to their application.
[22] When she was living in Balassargyamat with her husband, in the summer of 1998, two skinheads forced their way into their apartment, damaging their property and threatening her and her husband. The skinheads left, after the superintendent intervened and threatened to call the police. Her husband said that they did not call the police, feeling that it was pointless to do so.
Ferenc Vass and Palma Lakatos v. M.C.I. - IMM-611-99
[23] The applicants, Ferenc Vass and Palma Lakatos are citizens of Hungary who seek refugee status on the basis of their Roma Ethnicity.
[24] The male applicant, Ferenc Vass is forty-two years old and has completed eleven years of education. He worked as an adobe brick maker in Kisujszallas from May 1993 to April 1998. He arrived in Canada on April 23, 1998 with the co-applicant, his common-law spouse, Palma Lakatos. Palma Lakatos is twenty-five years old and has completed eight years of education. She has worked at odd jobs in Budapest until 1991. According to her PIF, she has been a housewife since 1991.
[25] The applicant, Ferenc Vass, claims that in April 1993, he was attacked by skinheads in Budapest. The attack led him to move to Kisujszallas, where he established a successful adobe brick making enterprise. He claims that the police in Kisujszallas continually harassed him, often detaining and beating him. Ferenc Vass explained that this was an attempt by the police to destroy traditional Roma occupations and to get the Roma population to work at jobs that ethnic Hungarians did not want to do, such as sweeping the streets.
ANALYSIS
[26] The applicants submit that the Board erred in law by making findings that were so patently unreasonable and perverse as to constitute a reviewable error.
[27] In the alternative, the applicants submit that the Board erred in law by referring to documentary evidence selectively and ignoring other documentary evidence supportive of the applicants' claims.
[28] The applicants also claim that had the Board not referred to the documentary evidence before it selectively, but had engaged in a reasonable assessment of the evidence as a whole, as required by law, the only rational conclusion open to the Board would have been that the applicants have a well-founded fear of future persecution in Hungary and that there is no effective state protection available to them in that country.
[29] Among other arguments, the applicants particularly insisted on the fact that a document issued by the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated February 1999 referred to the summary of the testimonies of five specialists in immigration matters.1 All those testimonies were given before the Immigration and Refugee Board in different cases. The applicants suggest that if the Board relied on those five testimonies in different cases, it constitutes importing evidence from other files, and consequently, it constitutes an error because the applicants had no access to all the evidence that was put before the Board in those cases.
[30] The applicants also suggest that one physical act as it was done by the skinheads against the applicant Ferenc Vass constitutes persecution, and the applicant was not required to show systematic persistence.
[31] Regarding the summary of the five specialists' testimonies2, the respondent suggests that the applicant was notified that exhibit R-13 and R-24 were available for consultation by the applicant. Counsel for the applicant mentioned to the Board at the time that he was "familiar with the contents"5. The respondent suggests that the documents were well prepared and that every single quote by those five specialists was clearly identified. There was no obligation whatsoever to file before the Board all materials filed in the cases in which those testimonies were originally introduced. The respondent suggests that these documents are like any other documentary evidence that is filed on a daily basis before the Board by parties, and are often hearsay, like newspaper articles and documents from all sources.
[32] The respondent further submits regarding Pohlot case (IMM-6269-99), that the Court should consider that the applicants left Hungary a few times and went back to Hungary. This demonstrates that their attitude was inconsistent with a real fear of persecution.
[33] In my view, the Board, in both cases, went through a lengthy analysis of the facts and also of the documentary evidence concerning the situation of the Roman community in Hungary. I see nothing wrong in the way the Board addressed the summary of the five specialists' testimonies before the Board in previous cases; it was totally acceptable, and the applicants are short to demonstrate that the Board made a reviewable error.
[34] The applicants claim that the Board erred in completely disregarding the credible, trustworthy and objective documentary evidence presented before it by the applicants. The applicants further claim that the Board erred by not outlining, in its reasons, why other documents were preferred over the document prescribed by the applicant.
[35] The Board does not have to mention each and every piece of evidence submitted. The Federal Court of Appeal in Florea v. Canada (M.E.I), [1993] F.C.J. No.598 (A-1307-91, June 11, 1993) (F.C.A.), held at paragraph 1:
| The fact that the Division did not mention each and every one of the documents entered in evidence before it does not indicate that it did not take them into account: on the contrary, a tribunal is assumed to have weighed and considered all the evidence presented to it unless the contrary is shown. As the tribunal's findings are supported by the evidence, the appeal will be dismissed. |
[36] The Board, in the fileFerenc Vass (IMM-6111-99), acknowledged the applicants evidence brought in testimony and addressed it. The Board also acknowledged the documentary evidence that spoke of the slow pace of change, problems in the implementation of programs and continuing widespread prejudice against Roma.
[37] As well, in the file Laszlo Pohlot (IMM-6269-99), the Board relied on the evidence from the lead cases but it also took into consideration the applicants' testimonies as well as the applicants' documentary evidence. The Board in its decision, at footnotes 7, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, refers to documentary evidence submitted by the applicants. Thus, it cannot be said that the Board failed to consider the evidence submitted by the applicants. It may be that the Board did not address all the evidence and did not explain why it preferred certain documentary evidence over others. However, the Board does not have to explain why it preferred certain documentary evidence over others.
[38] In Hassan v. Canada (M.E.I) (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal held:
| Counsel for the appellant submitted, however, as noted supra, that other portions of the Amnesty International Report were ignored by the Board and that such a circumstance represents a valid ground of appeal. I respectfully disagree. In my view the conclusions of the Board were reasonably open to it based on the totality of the evidence adduced and, consequently, it did not err in law. The fact that some of the documentary evidence was not mentioned in the Board's reasons is not fatal to it's decision. The passages from the documentary evidence that are relied on by the appellant are part of the total evidence which the Board is entitled to weigh as to reliability and cogency. |
[39] In the cases at bar, however, the Board did address the applicants' evidence. I cannot find that the Board erred in its assessment of the evidence.
[40] In my view, the applicants, in both files, have failed to establish any reviewable error in the decision made by the Refugee Division.
[41] For these reasons, these two applications for judicial review are dismissed.
[42] The applicants have suggested two questions for certification:
| 1. Does the CRDD lack or exceed jurisdiction by importing evidence, such as viva voce and documentary evidence, as well as particular findings of fact, from (an) other CRDD case(s) when the actual evidence from that other case is neither put before the claimant nor included in the tribunal record before the Federal Court, but rather and only a descriptive "index" of that evidence is provided and produced? |
| 2. Can physical attacks, threats, and/or injury to the physical and psychological integrity and well-being of a person, or serious threats thereof, based and triggered by the identifiable racial features of the victim, ever amount to "discrimination" or is it invariably "persecution" under the refugee definition? |
[43] The respondent opposes the certification of those two questions on the basis that they do not raise a question of general importance.
[44] In my view, the assessment of those two cases is mostly a question of facts. I have already answered the first question raised by the applicants and I cannot find that it is a question of general importance. I have also reviewed the second question raised by the applicants and I should conclude that the applicants fail to convince the Court that this is a question of general importance. Therefore, no questions will be certified.
ORDER
[45] For the reasons provided, these two applications for judicial review are dismissed.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 14, 2000
__________________1 Appendix "A" to respondent's memorandum of arguments.