Date: 20010313
Docket: IMM-5554-99
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 178
BETWEEN:
MAIA SVETOSLAVOVA MARINOVA
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] Maia Marinova, a 20 year old citizen of Bulgaria, together with her mother claimed status as Convention refugees. Their claim to a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the police and skinheads in Bulgaria was based upon their Roma ethnicity.
[2] In a written decision dated October 26, 1999, the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("CRDD") determined that while the mother, Maria Marinova, was a Convention refugee Maia Marinova was not. Maia Marinova brings this application for judicial review in respect of that decision.
THE FACTS
[3] The events which caused mother and daughter to flee Bulgaria began in October of 1998. Ms. Marinova's mother was visiting her cousin in a Romani ghetto in the city of Plovdiv. The police raided the ghetto and broke into Maria's cousin's home, swearing and thrashing around. Maria's cousin's son was frightened and began to cry. When the child would not stop crying a police officer kicked him, causing Maria and her cousin to get into a heated argument with the police. As a result, Maria was beaten, arrested and taken to the police station. At the station she was fingerprinted, photographed, placed in a cell, accused of assaulting a police officer, questioned about stolen goods, and abused verbally and physically. Maria was released the following day, and was then treated for injuries described as bleeding from the nose, traumatic swellings, bruises in the head and chest areas, and a concussion.
[4] In response to the mistreatment by the police, Maria Marinova filed a complaint against the police. Following that she was summoned to the police station, questioned about a theft in the neighbourhood, abused verbally, beaten with "fists and kicks" and threatened with sexual abuse. The police also told Maria that her family would suffer because of her behaviour.
[5] Following this, the family began to receive threatening phone calls at their residence. At the beginning of December of 1998, swastika and slogans such as "Death to Gypsies" were sprayed on the door of their apartment.
[6] Maria and her daughter obtained visas so that they were able to travel to Canada on February 7, 1999. They claimed refugee status the same day.
[7] Maria stated that she feared for herself and her family in Bulgaria, fearing both the Bulgarian police and the skinheads. She was of the view that they were not safe anywhere in Bulgaria and that there was no protection available to them.
[8] Maia Marinova confirmed and relied upon her mother's narrative.
[9] The CRDD found both claimants to testify in a forthright fashion. The CRDD determined that Maria was Roma and her daughter was half-Roma. Maria had married an ethnic Macedonian who was Maia's father.
[10] The CRDD concluded that Maria's claim was valid, basing its conclusion upon her evidence and upon documents in evidence as to country conditions attesting to the treatment of Roma by police in Bulgaria. The panel also relied upon summonses served upon Maria requiring her to attend at the police station. Those documents were found to be supportive of the contention that the police continued to have an interest in Maria even after her departure from Bulgaria.
[11] However, with respect to Maia it was the conclusion of the CRDD that there was no more than a mere possibility that she would face persecution from either the police or skinheads in Bulgaria should she return to that country.
ANALYSIS
[12] Ms. Marinova frames the general issue with respect to the CRDD's decision as whether the tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the totality of the evidence before it and whether it arrived at erroneous findings of fact made in a capricious or perverse manner.
[13] I find no merit to the unsubstantiated allegations that the CRDD failed to consider the country documentation before it; misinterpreted country conditions documents; relied on general or dated documents; relied on irrelevant considerations; or that it misconstrued relevant evidence or failed to consider all of the material evidence before it. Similarly, I find no basis to conclude that the CRDD misapplied the definition of Convention refugee. The CRDD directed itself to whether or not there was more than a mere possibility that the claimant would face persecution.
[14] The most serious argument advanced on behalf of Ms. Marinova was that having determined her mother to be a Convention refugee, the panel improperly rejected her claim in circumstances where she had the same family connections and the only difference between mother and daughter was that the mother happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
[15] The CRDD made its determination as to the daughter's claim after considering evidence before it which demonstrated that once Maria Marinova left Bulgaria her husband, Maia's father, lived there without incident. While the police visited the home inquiring about Maria, no inquiries were made about Maia. There was no persuasive evidence in the documentary record to show that the police in Bulgaria persecute family members of those who they target. The panel also noted that Maia had grown up in Bulgaria without ever having been confronted by skinheads, and although she had on one occasion seen them, that had been from a distance.
[16] Additionally, there was evidence before the CRDD that Maria's parents, who lived in a Romani neighbourhood, did not suffer any "serious problems" and lived "relatively in peace". Maria's cousin, who was involved in the altercation with the police in October of 1998 had no subsequent problems with the police.
[17] The determination of the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution is a question of mixed fact and law. In all cases, it is for the CRDD to draw its conclusion in a particular factual context by proceeding with a thoughtful analysis of the evidence before it. Judicial intervention is not warranted unless the CRDD's conclusion appears to be capricious or unreasonable (see: Sagharichi v. Canada (The Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.)).
[18] Persecution against one family member does not automatically entitle all other family members to be considered refugees (see Pour-Shariati v. Canada (The Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1997), 215 N.R. 174 (F.C.A.)).
[19] In the present case, the CRDD correctly set forth the legal test to be met. On the record before the CRDD, the conclusion it reached cannot be said to be capricious or unreasonable. The CRDD's conclusions can all be supported by evidence before it.
[20] In the result, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[21] Counsel for Ms. Marinova posed two questions for certification. First, do fears based on the applicant's mother's experience create a sufficient apprehension of harm? Second, did the CRDD err "in equating a half-Roma with a Macedonian"?
[22] Counsel for the Minister opposed certification submitting that the questions posed are factual and do not represent questions that call for certification. Counsel for the Minister submitted that no serious question of general importance is raised.
[23] I agree with the submissions of counsel for the Minister. No question is certified.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
March 13, 2001