Date: 19990812
Docket: IMM-4915-98
BETWEEN:
BEATRIZ MARIA GONZALEZ DE MORALES,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), dated March 11, 1998, wherein the applicant was determined not to be a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Venezuela, was taking a walk in Valencia on March 20, 1997, when a car came by and stopped. A man, Thomas Rivas, got out of the car and forced the applicant into it. The man took the applicant to a small town and gave her a week to tell him where the proceeds of a robbery, involving the applicant's son-in-law and himself in April or May, 1991, were hidden. Being scared of the man who was alleged to be an ex-guerilla member in a group called "Bandera Roja", she left Venezuela and came to Canada in May,1997.
[3] The Board concluded that the applicant had given no reasonable explanation as to why she would be denied State protection in Venezuela. The Board also concluded that the applicant's fear was not related to any of the grounds of persecution in the definition of a Convention refugee.
[4] The applicant submits that it was not reasonable to expect that she would seek the protection of the authorities in view of the fact that her daughter, suspected of being an accomplice of her husband in the robbery of May, 1991, had been beaten by the police, and in view of many abuses of human rights by the police, as evidenced by the documentary evidence. The applicant also submits that the Board knew or ought to have known that her daughter, whose claim for refugee status was granted on July 5, 1994, could establish the necessary nexus to a ground of persecution in the Convention refugee definition, because they had at their disposal the daughter's file. Finally, the applicant recalls the fact that the Board told her that they had decided not to obtain evidence from her daughter as it would make the proceedings too long.
[5] In spite of the able argument of counsel for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that the Court's intervention is warranted in this case.
[6] With respect to the argument that the Board had refused to hear the applicant's daughter "as this would take too much time" (para. 19 of the applicant's affidavit), there is not a shred of evidence to that effect in the transcript, and nothing suggests that the applicant, not represented by counsel at the time, was rushed in any way.
[7] As to the omission to consider the Personal Information File of the applicant's daughter which was at the Board's disposal, this Court is not satisfied that the Board failed to consider that evidence. My reading of the transcript convinces me that the members of the Board were aware of the contents of the daughter's PIF, and without specifically referring to it in their decision, took that evidence into consideration.
[8] As to the protection of the State, in my view, it was reasonably open to the Board to conclude that the applicant had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for seeking it. Even though there was evidence that the applicant's daughter had been beaten by the police immediately after the robbery in which her husband was involved in 1991, the applicant had no reason to fear the same treatment by the police, had she reported the incident which occurred in 1997.
[9] Over all, this Court is satisfied that it was reasonably open for the Board to conclude that the applicant had failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
[10] For these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed. No serious question of general importance needs to be certified.
_________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
August 12, 1999